Newspoll: 53-47 to Labor

Newspoll records the same two-party preferred result for the sixth poll in a row.

Yet another 53-47 result from Newspoll, from primary votes of Coalition 36% (unchanged), Labor 36% (down one), Greens 11% (up two) and One Nation 8% (down one). Both leaders recorded better personal ratings, with Malcolm Turnbull up four on approval to 38% and down four on disapproval to 50%, and Bill Shorten up three on approval to 36% and down two on disapproval to 51%. Turnbull’s lead on preferred prime minister has widened from 43-32 to 46-31. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1639.

Stay tuned for federal voting intention results from the Queensland-only poll conducted for the Courier-Mail, from which state results were published yesterday.

UPDATE: The numbers from the Courier-Mail’s Galaxy poll from Queensland, conducted Wednesday and Thursday from a sample of 902, are Coalition 37% (up two since April), Labor 32% (down one), One Nation 12% (down three) and Greens 7%, with Australian Conservatives recording a fairly impressive 6%. On two-party preferred, the Coalition records a lead of 51-49, which compares with 50-50 in April and 54.1-45.9 at last year’s election.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

747 comments on “Newspoll: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 13 of 15
1 12 13 14 15
  1. Entsch not backing away from crossing the floor (7.30 Report) but noting plebiscite is policy. I think he knows its toast.

  2. Mebbe those Labor MPs who have been holding out on ME will come around, given the chance. They will all face pre-selection within a few months. They will be conscious of the will of their branches/members.

  3. EL

    Interesting on Labor to not treat it as a confidence matter. I thought that it wouldn’t really matter given it wouldnt be a confidence issue.

  4. GG,
    Maybe a rename and revamp of Becket’s play called “Waiting for SSM” would be a good move!

    Nah. It’ll happen a lot sooner than Godot turning up to meet Vladimir and Estragon.

  5. Thanks for clarifying that Elaugaufein.. though I suspect the likes of Tony Abbott would be eager to regard it as a confidence matter nevertheless.

  6. Alias,
    Far more interesting is this notion that if both full pleb and postal pleb fail to materialise for whatever reason (High Court blockage etc) then Cabinet is open to recommending to the party room that the pleb policy be torpedoed in favour of a free vote poste haste. It stacks up doesn’t it?

    No, it doesn’t. More than one Conservative, and Entsch just now, has reaffirmed that if P1 and P2 do not get up, then the Plebiscite policy will stay in place until the next election and no Private Members Bill will be brought before the parliament in this term.

    End of.

  7. and Entsch just now, has reaffirmed that if P1 and P2 do not get up, then the Plebiscite policy will stay in place until the next election and no Private Members Bill will be brought before the parliament in this term.

    So it will take a Labor govt to get the job done. As usual.

    Could Malcolm’s legacy get any more trashed? And he’s more hollow than Hunt, and that’s saying something!!

  8. briefly @ #605 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 7:47 pm

    Mebbe those Labor MPs who have been holding out on ME will come around, given the chance. They will all face pre-selection within a few months. They will be conscious of the will of their branches/members.

    As you know they must come around if they want to hang onto their pre-selection for the next election. And for Senators, their spot at the election after that if they are 6 year place holders.

  9. SSO is a confidence matter by default because it involves losing control of the House (the conventions on SSOs require an absolute majority for spontaneous suspension or a normal majority if declared as part of business which means the whips have plenty of time so SSO of standing orders is definitely facto seizing control).

  10. ‘Fess,
    What is more hilarious than anything else is seeing the government MPs wittering on, hand on heart, about the sanctity and inviolability of election promises!

    Someone counted how many election promises Abbott broke and it was more than a few.

  11. “Effectively the moderates are saying: we’ll give your postal idea a fully fledged go, but if that fails you’ll have to accept we did our best to honour the pleb commitment and got stymied – and therefore we’ll go to free vote.”

    That would be an admission of defeat. Won’t happen. The Liberals are probably hoping the issue will die like the Republic. That won’t happen either.

  12. Elaugaufein,
    SSO is a confidence matter by default because it involves losing control of the House

    Not this time. Manager of Opposition Business, Tony Bourke, explicitly stated on Sunday that the Opposition will not use the issue of the SSO and vote on SSM, to move to a No Confidence Vote in the parliament.

  13. It seems to me that a suitable penalty for the CBA enabling money laundering on a large scale over many years, would to take away their Aust Govt. guarantee on all deposits up to $250,000.
    As well as a huge fine of course.

  14. Those yelling about not this time on SSO I already said that. I was clarifying that it doesn’t need to be declared as a confidence matter to count as one under normal circumstances because it counts as one under normal convention in response to replies I got.

  15. SSO is a confidence matter by default

    Not necessarily. Remember all those times Abbott successfully suspedned standing orders in the Gillard govt and they weren’t ever a question of confidence in the govt.

  16. Idea of March
    No, there are various things which demonstrate that you no longer have a majority in the floor of the House. These are all confidence matters by default. It almost never matters unless they really have lost the confidence of the House because the issue can be resolved by rebels voting in favour of a formal motion of confidence anyway to negate it which is probably one reason why Labor is so willing to extend an olive branch, it’s little more than a dog and pony show.

    Edit – this is why Abbot’s SSOs never mattered. The Gillard government had formal guarantees of confidence that were never withdrawn.

  17. The plebiscite policy is a commitment to do nothing at all. It is a promise that was always intended to keep ME out of the Parliament. The Liberals are promising to avoid reform for as long as possible.

    Of course, the next election is not far away. They will have to make a fresh commitment before long. They are imprisoned by their own intransigence. Incredible really.

  18. C@tMomma .. That’s not the way I heard Entsch. I thought he was far less definitive than that – in effect, not wanting to semaphore possible moves either tomorrow in Parly or down the track.

  19. Bool
    If we let CBA off with a large fine and do not jail the execs for their crimes, only the sharholders are punished. The execs will still get a bonus. Poroti is right. These guys are so overpaid that only the threat of jail will make any difference to their chances of doing the same thing again.

  20. briefly:

    Bernard Keane in today’s Crikey summed up the postal plebiscite as:

    The current, favoured “solution” — accepting that Dean Smith and his House of Representatives supporters won’t get their way — is the junkmail vote idea, followed by a parliamentary vote, in order to “honour” the party’s commitment to a plebiscite. It’s a second-rate version of a fifth-rate idea, a Plan Z for a party unwilling to consider any rational options. It is also, most likely, the least worst plausible option, if only because it will provide a way forward for the short time before a court knocks it (mis)appropriating money without legislative authorisation. Of course, a court might not knock it off, which could be even worse — assuming marriage equality supporters boycott it and younger voters ignore it, what chance a junkmail vote produces a “no” result? Technically, it doesn’t matter — homophobes within Liberal and LNP ranks have already said they’d ignore a positive outcome from a plebiscite. But it will look bloody stupid holding a parliamentary vote after a loss.

  21. Good evening all,

    Labor decided to not use the SSM bill as a trigger for a no confidence motion for two clear and simple reasons.

    Firstly, the decision was made so it could not be used by the coalition to pressure any government member considering crossing the floor from not doing so in case it bought down the government.

    Secondly, the decision was made so there could be no perception that Labor was using such a significant social and equity issue for so many Australians simply as a political tool.

    In other matters, the labor caucus is bound to vote for any SSO bought forward by the party. In this particular circumstance all labor HOR members would vote for a SSO to bring forward the SSM legislation and if successful they would then be allowed a conscience vote on that legislation.

    As I posted yesterday, labor policy, confirmed at National Conference, is for caucus members to be allowed a conscience vote on SSM legislation in this term. Any member is therefore perfectly entitled to abstain or vote against the legislation if it is presented this year. Any member who does so would have my complete support.

    Next term a different story.

    Cheers and a great night to all.

  22. briefly

    Of course, the next election is not far away. They will have to make a fresh commitment before long. They are imprisoned by their own intransigence. Incredible really.

    Like yelling into the wind.

  23. booleanbach
    It seems to me that a suitable penalty for the CBA enabling money laundering on a large scale over many years, would to take away their Aust Govt. guarantee on all deposits up to $250,000.
    As well as a huge fine of course.

    hmmm…the guarantee serves depositors too. If they withdrew their deposits then the CBA would be weakened….which would not serve the financial system stability….so this may end up harming depositors and the customers of all other banks, who have done nothing wrong.

    But this does illustrate the problem that exists when banks breach the law. What is to be done with an errant bank? The Banking Act is hopelessly deficient at the moment. I think there must be a provision for banks to be taken into public ownership and their equity cancelled. This would be the snuff solution. Banks that break the law would cease to exist, but their clients would not be harmed. Their shareholders would be wiped out. This will help ensure that Directors and executives observe the full spirit and letter of the law.

  24. Further on CBA, remember that these guys are paid literally millions to be responsible for this sort of stuff. And they have a whole legion of in house and on call lawyers to advise them what is legal. Yet they permit money laundering from drug gangs, and cheerfully pocket the fees. No excuses, jail is deserved. We jail people for overclaiming a few thousand from centrelink. If CBA execs get off we look like Victorian england.

  25. Socrates
    Bool
    If we let CBA off with a large fine and do not jail the execs for their crimes, only the sharholders are punished. The execs will still get a bonus. Poroti is right. These guys are so overpaid that only the threat of jail will make any difference to their chances of doing the same thing again.

    There is a distinction between the officers of a corporation and the corporation itself. Corporations have a legal existence and can be convicted of criminal offences, as can their officers. I think that a corporation that has a criminal conviction should be incapable of holding a banking licence, especially if such conviction relates to the dishonest or deceptive or otherwise unlawful handling of monies.

    I have personal experience of my funds being stolen by a bank within the literal meaning of the WA Criminal Code. I was reimbursed after I protested very vigorously. But the point remains: a bank stole my money. If anyone else had done the same thing they would have been charged, convicted and imprisoned. Financial corporations are notionally though not in practice subject to the same law. They face no sanction. I think they should be subject to sanction. They certainly have an existence that extends well beyond the acts of their directors and officers.

  26. Doyley
    Labor’s position also avoids exposing the far right conservatives in Labor who will put religious prejudice ahead of the wishes of their electorate.

    Looks like only seven Libs were honest enough to vote for the public interest. Their names deserve to be remembered.
    “The 7 who voted for a change to a free vote on SSM were: Wilson, Smith, Evans, Entsch, Zimmerman, Alexander, Wood”

    I see my local MP Chris Pyne is in hiding.

  27. It would be risky to wipe out the shareholders of the Big 4 banks. The effective guarantees over the years means that they have a broad uptake amongst even small investors and (most dangerously) super funds. The political backlash would be potentially devestating (which is why Labor isn’t proposing it). This is kind of the issues with institutions that are too large, it’s impossible to reign them in without broad suffering that makes it politically dangerous to do so.

  28. alias @ #624 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 8:08 pm

    C@tMomma .. That’s not the way I heard Entsch. I thought he was far less definitive than that – in effect, not wanting to semaphore possible moves either tomorrow in Parly or down the track.

    Alias,
    Sometimes it’s hard to understand Entsch at all! Nevertheless, do you honestly believe Conservatives in the Coalition will lay down like sacrificial lambs and allow a Free Vote in this term of parliament if P1 and P2 get knocked back? Tony Abbott, for one, has let it be known publicly that he will make sure that the Plebiscite policy is in force until the next election. He will not be the only one.

  29. Elaugaufein
    It would be risky to wipe out the shareholders of the Big 4 banks.

    Well what would you propose to do with a bank that has a criminal conviction?

  30. Socrates
    Pyne is likely bound by Cabinet solidarity on this even internally , all those voting in favour are backbenchers from what I can see.

  31. Sorry but I do not get why people are debating the need for new laws over the CBA money laundering case. There is no need for new laws. Money laundering is a crime under existing law. Enforce the law on all, or don’t have the law. Excuses are for the compromised. The Liberals want to invent complexity in this case, so that they do not look corrupt when they let those responsible off.

  32. Recall, the bank stole a lot of money from me. I observed them stealing from others too. They were indifferent to the fate of this shareholder. I reckon they should be disqualified from handling funds.

  33. Interesting C@tmomma .. What makes this scenario all the more fascinating to me is this: Liberal moderates can reasonably, I believe, observe two parallel tracks: First, that the issue of SSM need to be dealt now, and by Parliament; and second – perhaps more importantly big picture – that dealing with the issue fast is absolutely in the best interests of the Government as a whole and Turnbull’s leadership in particular.

  34. Iirc, Jason Wood, when interviewed on the doors after the meeting, said he voted to have a Free Vote because that’s what he was elected to do. I don’t think that necessarily meant that he would then have voted for SSM. I think he intimated he would vote against it.

  35. The seven MPs who voted to change the policy were: Warren Entsch and Trevor Evans (Qld), Tim Wilson and Jason Wood (Vic), John Alexander and Trent Zimmerman (NSW) and Senator Dean Smith (WA).

    Nobody from Tas, NT, SA or ACT. I guess Birmingham and Pyne were hamstrung by being front benchers and therefore obligated to support policy. But what about the member for Boothby who I thought was somewhat moderate.

  36. Socrates
    Sorry but I do not get why people are debating the need for new laws over the CBA money laundering case.

    The point is there is currently no effective sanction that can be used against the institutions. Individuals may be subject to penalties. But this does not deal with the actual culprit – the bank itself.

    To restate the question – what should we do with a bank that has a criminal conviction?

  37. Briefly
    My sympathy on your case. If you are saying that the institution should be punished as well as the individuals, I agree. My concern is that the individuals are likely to get off scot free. Most Acts give a range of penalties. I would be very surprised if even this event would wipe out all of CBA’s equity.

  38. alias @ #639 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 8:31 pm

    Interesting C@tmomma .. What makes this scenario all the more fascinating to me is this: Liberal moderates can reasonably, I believe, observe two parallel tracks: First, that the issue of SSM need to be dealt now, and by Parliament; and second – perhaps more importantly big picture – that dealing with the issue fast is absolutely in the best interests of the Government as a whole and Turnbull’s leadership in particular.

    3rd, their numbers are puny for changing the policy in this term and so the Moderates who are agitating for change now are marooned.

  39. briefly @ #627 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 8:24 pm

    Socrates
    Bool
    If we let CBA off with a large fine and do not jail the execs for their crimes, only the sharholders are punished. The execs will still get a bonus. Poroti is right. These guys are so overpaid that only the threat of jail will make any difference to their chances of doing the same thing again.

    There is a distinction between the officers of a corporation and the corporation itself. Corporations have a legal existence and can be convicted of criminal offences, as can their officers. I think that a corporation that has a criminal conviction should be incapable of holding a banking licence, especially if such conviction relates to the dishonest or deceptive or otherwise unlawful handling of monies.

    I have personal experience of my funds being stolen by a bank within the literal meaning of the WA Criminal Code. I was reimbursed after I protested very vigorously. But the point remains: a bank stole my money. If anyone else had done the same thing they would have been charged, convicted and imprisoned. Financial corporations are notionally though not in practice subject to the same law. They face no sanction. I think they should be subject to sanction. They certainly have an existence that extends well beyond the acts of their directors and officers.

    You have been a victim of the most common form of ‘bank robbery’, the one where the bank robs a customer.

    The other type that receives all the publicity is comparatively rare.

  40. Briefly
    I actually agree with you in theory. Just pointing out why it won’t happen even in the current environment where the political wind is blowing against bizonomics / free markets yay attitude that’s been dominant since the 80s.

    The actual solutions are either that the government doesn’t give special guarantees to any particular private sector entity, if something is sufficiently important that is necessary it should either be provided to the sector generally and act to prevent the overconcentration of the sector as a quid pro quo or (preferably) provided by a public entity (its pretty safe to describe anything requiring effective government guarantee for social stability as an effective monopoly).

    But that’s not useful for dealing with the situation when it’s already present.

  41. At the meeting, most MPs argued the government should heap pressure back on Labor and the Senate crossbench, who together with the Greens blocked the plebiscite late last year.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-government-kills-samesex-marriage-conscience-vote-agrees-to-postal-plebiscite-20170807-gxqzam.html

    I saw an earlier tweet from Lambie that indicated she wouldn’t support another plebiscite bill. Presumably SenX and his crew wouldn’t either.

  42. Socrates,

    All of the so called ” far right conservatives ” in labor are perfectly entitled this term to vote with their conscience. They are not contradicting current labor policy and thus, while I personally support SSM, they have my full support. It is not their fault that Turnbull refuses to extend the same freedom to his colleagues.

    Next term all members of caucus will be bound. That will then be a different story.

    Anyway, off to the movies I go.

    Cheers to you and a good night to all.

  43. **Jail some bankers and you will be amazed how much better the ‘banks’ will behave. Simple.**
    Damn tootin’.

    Refund the agencies responsible for investigating and enforcing white collar crime and send white collar criminals to jail. Send their managers to jail too (shorter duration). I dont care if they didnt know about the crime (or claim not to). You cant claim high salaries due to high responsibilities then abdicate that responsibility when it suits.

    And fine the company for the breach and costs of enforcement.

    Strengthen existing laws and regulations if necessary.

  44. Socrates & BE….the point is that a corporation with a criminal conviction relating to the dishonest mis/handling of monies should not be permitted to hold a banking licence. In the case of the CBA, were their licence to be revoked (or be at risk of being revoked) they would be instantly insolvent and, unless other measures were taken, the financial system would implode.

    This is a major ethical and legal dilemma in my opinion. Until it is resolved, financial corporations will do whatever they like. My view is the Banking Act needs to be reformed so that the misconduct of institutions can be handled other than by the criminal law (where it seems to enjoy an exemption in any case). There must be some way to exact substantial penalties from banks as distinct from their officers and directors whenever they breach the law. This is not an idle matter. I know the banks collude with each other in the misappropriation of many millions from each others’ clients every year. Anyone else that did this would be in prison.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 13 of 15
1 12 13 14 15