The third voting intention poll from YouGov again has primary vote numbers that aren’t wildly off beam from the other pollsters, but leans heavily to the Coalition in terms of preference allocation. However, this is less severe than it was in the last poll, so I’ve decided to revert to type in running the two-party result as my headline, at least on this occasion. Whereas the Coalition led 52-48 in the last poll, this time it’s level despite both major parties being unchanged on the primary vote, at 36% for the Coalition and 33% for Labor. However, the Greens are down two points to 10%, which a) brings this result closer into line than other pollsters, and b) would actually have led to you expect movement away from Labor on two-party preferred, if previous election preferences were applied. One Nation is up a point to 8%. Applying 2016 preference flows to these unrounded figures, the result come out at around 52-48 in favour of Labor.
Other findings from the poll:
• Malcolm Turnbull records 45% approval and 47% disapproval, while Bill Shorten is on 42% approval and 47% disapproval, which is better than what both are used to. Also featured are ratings for a number of second-tier political figures, with results of 34-56 for Tony Abbott, 25-38 for Richard Di Natale, 31-44 for Christopher Pyne, 39-52 for Pauline Hanson, 33-43 for Bob Katter and, with the only net positive result, 50-25 for Nick Xenophon.
• Twenty-six per cent say Malcolm Turnbull “represents what the Liberal Party stands for” more than Tony Abbott, 19% the opposite, 22% call it a draw, and 18% say neither does. The respective numbers are 20-19-13-38 for being in touch with the concerns of ordinary Australians, 30-14-14-30 for electability and 23-19-13-35 for strength of leadership.
• Fifty-three per cent say they would support a referendum on establishing a new body representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but it may just be that people like referendums: of those in favour, 38% would vote yes in such a referendum and 15% would vote no. Support was presumably lower among those opposed to a referendum, but the numbers are not provided.
• Thirty-seven per cent would support a referendum proposal to allow dual citizens to run for federal parliament, with 48% opposed.
• Sixty-eight per cent believe women in sport should get the same pay as men, with only 18% opposed. Sixty-four per cent think the AFL officials who resigned over relationships with younger female staff members were right to have done so, with only 17% saying they were wrong to have.
The poll was conducted online from Thursday to Monday, with a sample of 1005.
NOTE ON COMMENTS REDESIGN: As regular users will know by now, we have a new comments facility which looks a lot sharper than what we had before and has a number of welcome new features. It also publishes the results in reverse chronologically, which is not to everybody’s tastes but has been done for good reason, and which you get used to quicker than you might think. Most of all, this has had a spectacular effect on the efficiency with which Crikey’s servers are operating.
William,
Sh!t!!!
This steps it out.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-roberts-did-not-receive-confirmation-he-renounced-british-citizenship-until-months-after-election-20170727-gxkbtu.html
One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts received confirmation that his British citizenship had been revoked in December – a full five months after he nominated as a candidate to the Senate.
After a week of pressure over his citizenship status, Senator Roberts finally unveiled a timeline during an interview on Sky News late on Thursday night.
Senator Roberts said he wrote to the British authorities on May 1 last year to ask them whether he was a British citizen, given he was born to a Welsh father in India.
He says he got no response so wrote a further email on June 6 – three days before nominations closed – saying that if he was a citizen he fully renounced. He subsequently nominated as a candidate and won a Queensland Senate seat.
It was not until December 5 that he got a response from the British High Commission confirming his citizenship was revoked.
The question now will be whether his emails amount to taking “reasonable steps”, as required by the constitution, or whether his eligibility can be challenged on the basis he was a dual citizen until the formal British confirmation in December.
“I’ve taken all steps that I reasonably believe necessary,” Senator Roberts told Sky News.
shellbell:
Seriously, WTF?
William Bowe @ #999 Thursday, July 27th, 2017 – 9:50 pm
That may well be the case. But, the problem here is there is no documents released as yet to confirm or deny anything. All we have is Malcolm Roberts whimsy and assertions. I’d imagine the HC will rely on verifiable documentary evidence to make any ruling.
Roberts seems to be playing a game of hide the “silly sausage” atm.
Well, let the evidece speak for itself instead of flimsy stat decs and half-baked interveiews on Bolt.
GG
Malcolm is certainly not playing hide the silly sausage. He wont rid himself from the public.
@William Bowe & All other users
Ok so, just putting this out there regarding comment pagination etc…
Here are a few ‘premium addons’ the developers of this comment system provide
Comment Searching: https://gvectors.com/product/wpdiscuz-comment-search/
I believe this would render a lot of the need for pagination obsolete, while also saving on bandwidth when people are jumping around trying to find posts like BK’s Dawn Patrol.
User & Comment Mentioning: https://gvectors.com/product/wpdiscuz-user-comment-mentioning/
Being able to @mention a user, and also #mention a comment number (comment quoting) – pretty powerful
User Info: http://wpdiscuz.com/addons/wpdiscuz-comment-author-info
See user’s activity and comment history, again simplifies finding that post you’re looking for
Emoticons: https://gvectors.com/product/wpdiscuz-emoticons/
For all you emoticon lovers, supports custom emoticons with some tweaks
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bp/1992/92bp29.pdf
Any person who –
(i) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges
of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as ‘a Senator or a Member of the
House of Representatives.
Seems fairly open and shut
cud,
Unfortunately, if he can produce the emails he said he sent, I think the HC would consider that he had taken reasonable steps to renounce his citizenship.
EDIT:
The one potential I see is if the reasonable steps clause is deemed to only be relevant in cases where a country does not allow you to renounce citizenship.
@Barney
I’m waiting for him try to attempt to hand print-outs of the ’emails’ in as evidence…
Who would defend Roberts if it went to Court? Would he be free to seek his own barrister? Would the solicitor-general represent the gov? Any info anyone?
Barney. I just can’t find where in the constitution it says “reasonable steps”.
Cud:
Well yeah, except as has been pointed out previously, the wording in Sec 44(i) is entirely sloppy.
Yeah I think Malcolm might have his empirical evidence. If he did indeed write to enquire and then follow up with an email revoking British Citizenship before noms closed then the HC would surely count that as reasonable steps.
The fact it took the poms 6 months to get around to it should be by the by.
barney,
Not necessarily.
cud chewer @ #1012 Thursday, July 27th, 2017 – 10:15 pm
Because its not there.
The High Court apparently said that.
I have it on the authority of an earlier PB post I read. 😉
cud chewer
Barney. I just can’t find where in the constitution it says “reasonable steps”.
It doesn’t that relates to a HC ruling.
I added this to my original comment.
The one potential I see is if the reasonable steps clause is deemed to only be relevant in cases where a country does not allow you to renounce citizenship.
William or lawyers, any thoughts.
Well, I’d have thought “taking reasonable steps” would also conclude confirming that the reasonable steps were successful.
The ‘reasonable steps’ clause isn’t in the constitution, but in a ruling by the High Court, I think the Heather Hill case.
This was to cover the case where another country doesn’t allow you to renounce your citizenship, or has onerous conditions
This might explain a few things for those “raging against the gerbils”.
So the Sky News interview yields us nothing more on the Roberts front?
Old Media needs to go its hardest.
The only question is did the sending of the emails constitute a renouncement of British citizenship. If he did then Roberts had no Britis citizenship at the date of the election.
In the event Roberts had not effectively ended his citizenship until so advised by the poms then he is in breach of s.44. His efforts were NOT reasonable because he could have attended to the matter completely prior to thelection.
Can one not go into an Embassy/High Commission/Consulate and renounce citizenship, and would this not be the normal way?
Roberts got 77 votes, is obviously an idiot, I think we should not care too much.
‘fess,
It suggests he’s probably on safer ground than Canavan.
Not a lawyer, but I think the HC would take a pretty wide interpretation of ‘reasonable steps’.
The length of time another country might take to confirm that you’ve renounced your citizenship is something beyond your control.
Remember it was a DD so the timing was a little early than expected. Plans for the election have to be brought forward, and lets face it, lots of people nominate late in the game. It’s really only the major party candidates in winnable seats and a few higher profile indies that have their plans in place well before the election.
So I would expect the HC to say you’ve actively sought to renounce and notified the country involved. The fact the actions Roberts took seem to have been successful and acknowledged by Britain could only be evidence of him taking reasonable steps. The fact they took so long to get around to it, isn’t Roberts’ fault.
It’s a different situation to the Gs and Canavan. The Constitution doesn’t care if you knew about your other citizenship. Just if you have taken steps to renounce.
Would love few things more than seeing a dangerous moron like Malcolm Roberts keep away from APH, but I don’t think this is going to do it.
[A statistic for the frustrated by-election fans among us. Including Canavan and Roberts, we have four Senators or ex-Senators in the firing line over dual citizenship — all of them Senators. The probability of four randomly chosen federal MPs being all from the Senate is 1.3%.]
Does anyone honestly believe if Canavan was say, the Member for Dickson, he or the party would have gone public with his possible Italian citizenship?
You never would have heard about it and he would quietly have taken any renounciation steps before the next election…
I doubt they would be quite that strict, given the flak the Sykes v Cleary ruling has been copping in recent weeks. It offers only the following guidance:
The only occasion the court has had to be more specific was to say that it was not sufficient to have participated in the Australian naturalisation ceremony as it existed before 1984, which included an oath that one was “renouncing all other allegiance”. Mary Gaudron dissented on this point, which was probably very wise of her.
If you’re a Crikey subscriber, it has an excellent article on section 44 today by Michael Bradley.
Still getting notified of ‘new comments’ from the Essential thread!
Folks, avoid the ‘new follow up comments” button — I think this one is going to be filling up my inbox until I shuffle off this mortal coil…
Yes I enjoyed that analysis. Looking forward to how this whole scene plays out in the courts.
Barney:
Guess we have to see how this plays out! 😀
I see there were a few dead-enders persisting on the old thread well after my “new thread” link, which is evidently easier to miss with reverse chronological comments. I may have to start switching the old thread off manually when we move on in future. It currently happens automatically when the post is ten days old or so.
[Folks, avoid the ‘new follow up comments” button — I think this one is going to be filling up my inbox until I shuffle off this mortal coil…]
Poor you! Sorry to hear that – what a nasty little bug that was. I suppose no new system change is without a little hidden nasty!
Which is Roberts and which is Canavan?
On the ‘reasonable steps’ test, if the judgement of the HC majority holds, which was 5-2, in Sykes v Cleary where the test was set on Dual Nationality, it is hasta lavista baby for Roberts.
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bp/1992/92bp29.pdf
P23 onwards of the attached commentary at the time makes it clear that the rules of the foreign country, and any procedures they may have to renounce citizenship, should be followed.
As many have pointed out, the U.K. has set processes, forms etc to renounce citizenship. They don’t include dopey emails (with CAPITALS SAYING I RENOUNCE so the indolent British clerk will snap to attention like the Indian servants Roberts was familiar with).
Ratsak,
This lawyer doesn’t share your confidence that the High Court will interpret “reasonable steps” to include failing to use the foreign country’s (not unreasonable) process. After all, as Sam Dastyari’s pointed out, he had to go to the trouble of spending about $30K on Australian and Iranian lawyers to renounce his Iranian citizenship.
The fact the Brits took so long to confirm’s irrelevant. No wonder they did! Who did Roberts email? The office boy at the High Commission?
If Roberts had lodged a proper application before nominations closed but the confirmation of renunciation didn’t come until afterwards there’d be no doubt that he’d taken “reasonable steps” even if in the interim the Brits still considered him a citizen.
Why why why am I being silenced
William Bowe @ #1032 Thursday, July 27th, 2017 – 10:42 pm
I can’t see any point in not turning it off immediately.
Is it possible to warn anyone attempting to post that there is a new thread?
P23 onwards
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bp/1992/92bp29.pdf
Just an observation on Roberts.
The process to renounce your citizenship seems different to what he describes.
Looking at the website there are forms to be filled out, signed and posted to the UK.
Nothing about emails.
Problem?
https://www.gov.uk/renounce-british-nationality
Sprocket:’
Crikey had a really good article today re Canavan which me, lizzie and William promoted. You should read back for the link if you’re interested.
https://www.expatinfodesk.com/expat-guide/relinquishing-citizenship/renouncing-your-british-passport/five-steps-to-giving-up-your-british-passport/
The above describes the procedures required to renounce UK citizenship.
Since the UK confirms Roberts is not a citizen, he must have followed the procedure, which includes paying a fee. From what he published, Roberts does not appear to have done this prior to his election as a Senator. I think there may be a few things the Senator has not yet disclosed.
Snap, BIGD
Roberts is fucked surely. Or is he still waiting for his senate enquiry motion thing that he called, to do something.
Possum Comitatus @Pollytics 3m3 minutes ago
More
At the next election, the Senate ballot papers should have the rider “Gamble responsibly” printed on the bottom
I wonder who has standing to petition a court for an order requiring Roberts to disclose everything in his possession relating to his citizenship….
briefly @ #1042 Thursday, July 27th, 2017 – 11:00 pm
He does seem to be very “economical” with the truth.
Roberts is definitely providing a
GG…sparing with the evidence, GG, sparing everything but denial… 🙂
[I wonder who has standing to petition a court for an order requiring Roberts to disclose everything in his possession relating to his citizenship….]
Surely a losing candidate? Who challenged Hill in 1999? Is this time-limited??