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.
I thought Lambie voted for the plebiscite last time ? And indicated that she’d vote as Tasmania did despite personally not being in favour of SSM. The government are starting in a pretty deep hole if she’s changed her mind on this since.
Sen X and Hinch have also stated clearly they will still not vote for a plebiscite. So it is doomed and a complete waist of Parliament’s time putting It up again.
E:
This was her tweet:
GG You support this?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-06/churchs-words-ring-hollow-in-light-of-merciless-legal-tactics/8763302
Another bombshell report by Four Corners, which just seems to keep producing journalism of the first order.
E:
You’re right, she did support a plebiscite before!
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/08/01/mps-deny-same-sex-marriage-vote-threatens-turnbull-leadership
poroti
briefly
Jail some bankers and you will be amazed how much better the ‘banks’ will behave. Simple.
This is not enough in my opinion. When a mining company breaches mining, environmental, safety or employment law they are liable to penalties, including the cancellation of their mining rights; a fishing company that breaches the Fisheries Act is liable to lose its licences; a hotel that breaks the conditions of its Liquor Licence will forfeit its rights. But banks face no such consequences. They have a position of unique power and trust and they routinely abuse it. They should face consequences as institutions, so their shareholders also incur a penalty.
The point about a DD is not that Trumble will wake up one morning and think, yeah lets have an election. In the normal course of events having a DD over this issue (or any with the polls as they are) is slim to buckley’s chance.
But it’s not zero.
There are a few not completely there scenarios where a second rejection of the plebiscite gets used as a trigger for a DD.
One would be if Trumble knew he was done for and wanted to go out on his own terms. This is exactly what drove the timing of Abbott’s knifing. They feared he was going to pull a DD rather than be torn down.
A second would be if Trumble was replaced and the replacement wasn’t deluded. They could accept they are only PM to save the furniture and so go to a DD hoping to get enough of a bounce to stop it being a trouncing.
But the interesting scenario that I alluded to earlier was if the Coalition fell apart and could no longer control the house. Then you would have the 75 option where the GG gives Shorten the commission and before he even risked facing the house he advised the GG to call an election. We discussed this scenario a few days ago. But if the Plebiscite bill did get defeated a second time Shorten would now have the option to make the election a DD. An option I doubt he’d hesitate to take. Interestingly the trigger would still likely be active even if it was the passage of SSM was the last straw that caused the Government to fall. It’s a completely separate bill, and the only qualification for it’s use as a trigger is that it has been twice rejected. That a subsequent bill made passing it pointless would require a very very courageous GG to deny his newly minted PM a DD.
So am I expecting a DD over the plebiscite? No. Is it a possibility? Yes. Would Shorten call one using it as a trigger if he found himself in the position to do so? As close to a certainty as you can get.
A GG would be on pretty strong ground to refuse a DD for a trigger that’s already resolved. The purpose of a DD is to allow a joint sitting, in the event that the joint sitting is unnecessary (because its purpose is accomplished) the trigger is likely invalid. A DD is not automatic because it denies people who voted for the effected Senators the duration of their terms, so playing clever clogs should generally not be allowed.
As others have clarified. No such thing as a conscience vote on a procedural vote. Even Libs don’t have that luxury. That’s why any rebels crossing the floor to bring on an SSM Bill would be a declaration of war (and very likely won’t happen).
It would be one thing for Libs to cross the floor to vote for a Bill that was presented to the house. The loons would lose their shit, but it would be manageable (or would be if they had anything that resembled a leader). Defying the whip to allow the Bill to even be voted on would be a terminal breakdown in discipline that couldn’t be survived. To defeat your own party on procedural votes would be open slather with every couple of loons capable of preventing a bill coming to the House or playing havoc with the running of the House. Nothing could hold them together after that.
Murdoch’s Oz claims that Turnbull has the whole thing under control. We’ll see.
Looks like 4 Corners just took a big dump (literally) on local, state & federal government.
So a vote in parliament only happens if a majority vote yes in the postal plebiscite? This seems to me the easiest way to get SSM legislated in the current parliament, so why on earth are ME opponents vowing to boycott or draw dick pics on their ballot papers in protest?
Elaugaufein @ #633 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 8:29 pm
This.
Elaugaufein @ #659 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 8:59 pm
The purpose of the plebiscite bill is to hold the plebiscite. If the plebiscite hasn’t been held then the purpose hasn’t been resolved.
A DD isn’t automatic, but it is. The GG isn’t going to knock back a PM’s request. They might have a think about it over lunch, but they will take the PM’s advice. If the PM insisted one of the other of them are gonna get sacked. This is doubly so in the situation where an opposition leader has been commissioned. The GG will want to see order restored and if the government has fallen to bits and his new PM says he needs a new election and btw here’s a DD trigger I advise is active, then a DD is what will happen.
Someone (not the GG) might appeal to the HC. If the writs are issued they’d probably say yeah, nah. At worst on the very off chance they heard the appeal they might find some time long after the fact that the GG had erred but hey it’s too late now. Most likely they’d find the trigger was live because no plebiscite had been held.
The purpose of the DD isn’t the joint sitting. That is just the last of many options available. That’s why it’s only happened once. The DD triggers never even being brought back to the senate after winning the election has happened more often (75 and 87). 75 proves beyond doubt that a bill used as a trigger actually being genuinely sought by the government is not a requirement. Those Bills (as would this in the scenario we are discussing) were actually voted against by the Coalition. They had no intention of ever proceeding with them and they duly disappeared after the election.
Yep… apparently half of all recycling is diverted to landfill in NSW.
Voice Endeavour @ #395 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 1:45 pm
The WA Liberals tried that recently. We all know how that worked out for them.
Our council buries its glass recycling and has done for years.
JimmyDoyle
Gov seems determined to reduce NSW to a dump, shame on them.
Fess – appalling. Has one asking what is the effing point!
Elaugaufein
A GG would be on pretty strong ground to refuse a DD for a trigger that’s already resolved. The purpose of a DD is to allow a joint sitting
Nah, the purpose of a DD is to cause an election. No GG would refuse advice to dissolve the Parliament as long as the provisions of the Constitution had been met.
Well there’s one NT HoRer prepared to fight for ME:
https://www.facebook.com/snowdonmp/posts/10155518165072768
JD:
The council says it can’t afford the transport fees to Albany which does have glass recycling. I just despair at this kind of thing.
Further to the banks…I do intend to make this my business, come the election of a Labor Government. There is no reason that banks should be above the law. The Commonwealth Criminal Code and the Banking Act need to be reformed. I intend to promote this and would encourage others to do the same.
mikehilliard – as bludgers are fond of saying – NSW: corrupt one day; corrupt the next.
Fess – pure laziness. Ground up glass can be used as roadbase.
@Alias
Except NBN, Transparency and a few other things come to mind.
My council is rare in Sydney in having their own waste dump (that they own). They are just starting work on a major new recycling plant. I wonder if my recycling is doing as well as I thought.
Possibly, a bank that has convictions for, say, money-laundering or stealing or otherwise unlawful mishandling monies should be taken into a form of custodial administration for a given term. The term could vary with the gravity of the offences and their extent, but could be, say, anything up to 20 years. During this term, the bank would run as usual, but no dividends would be paid to shareholders. Instead, they would accrue to the Commonwealth. At the end of the term of custodial administration, a portion of the equity would be assigned to the Commonwealth, who could then dispose of it.
This would create a very powerful incentive for banks and their shareholders to ensure they observed the criminal and other securities laws.
Wow the federal govt’s new social media policy for public servants is just wacko. From today’s Crikey email:
How on earth are they going to police it given the tens of thousands of federal public servants dotted around the country? And ‘liking’ facebook material isn’t necessarily because you agree with the material, but it could be because you like the associated image. Ditto sharing which could be sharing a police or emergency services warning because you want your friends to be across the content.
I don’t see how this is workable to be honest.
Elaugaufein @ #630 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 6:27 pm
The sensible solution here, and I borrow it from the Americans, is to break the entity up into smaller entities on an anti trust basis.
Ides of March – my own council, Newcastle City, has its own landfill and diversion/recycling centre, but I’ve heard a few rumours over the years.
Briefly
Id love for the govt to step in as you’ve suggested but thats not feasible. My problem is that over all of these scandles no one but small fry are going to jail. The govt and regulatory authorities are doing very little.
I actually think the govt should own and run a very very plain and boring savings and house mortgage bank. One that more closely aligns with the RBA.
briefly @ #670 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 9:32 pm
Or more specifically to cause a dissolution of both houses of Parliament to be followed by an election for both houses.
It’s important to remember the HC has actually made rulings about how the DD power is to be used in 74. In that Barwick noted that it was a misconception that the GG has dissolved both houses in respect to any particular bill, merely that they had dissolved the houses. Also that the GG is not the final arbiter of if the requirements for the dissolution have been met. Only the HC can do that, and so the GG is under no obligation to nominate any bill in dissolving the houses. The GG has to satisfy themself that the proper conditions for dissolution have been met, but unless it was a clearly fraudulent case the advice of the PM would be the determining factor. GG’s just don’t have that much discretion in reality.
The HC might come to a different conclusion later, but like 74 that wouldn’t nullify an election, at worst it would prevent a bill that was found not to be in compliance from being presented to a joint sitting.
Of course, during a period of custodial administration, the shares of a bank could not be traded or assigned though its other securities would continue to be marketable. This would protect counter-parties, including depositors, other lenders and borrowers.
This would certainly change the behaviour of banks and their owners.
JD:
I agree, but we’re talking about a small rural council which doesn’t necessarily have the resources or expertise to pursue innovation. One reason I supported the former WA government’s council amalgamations* was because it would give rural and regional councils that kind of critical mass which gave them leveraging power.
*Even though the Barnett reforms excluded rural councils. But still, I hoped that once it rolled out metro, country would be next.
briefly @ #677 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 9:45 pm
Fair enough if the shareholders had any real power.
Power resides with the Board and Executive Management.
The Board is put their by major shareholders, mainly institutions and are part of an ‘old boys’ network. The ordinary shareholder has close to zero power and influence.
IoM…I’m not especially focussed on pinging officials, though that should be done too. The institutions themselves need to be subject to sanction. Their owners need to experience penalties too.
Banks have a legal existence. They can be made to be subject to legal penalties. I intend to make this my business.
briefly @ #687 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 7:54 pm
I’m 100% behind putting directors in gaol. For a very long time.
bemused
Then a feature of banks’ Annual Reports will be the chapter headed “Legal Compliance”. The moral hazard arguments have exempted banks from legal sanctions for many many years. This has to stop. Banks should not above the law. They derive enormous advantages from their role in the reserve system, in the creation of money, in the settlement of transactions. They should be rather more accountable than less.
Briefly
I think going after the head honchos could really force a culture change without causing damage to shareholders/customers
Jeez, Malcolm, even Mark Kenny is calling you a weasel. It can’t get worse than that.
From The Australian.
Well, given the mongrel is still yet to appear in public after today’s shameful display of cowardice, I’m not surprised The Great Turd is turning off even his previously biggest fans.
A totally unedifying day for Turnbull.
grimace
briefly @ #687 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 7:54 pm
IoM…I’m not especially focussed on pinging officials, though that should be done too. The institutions themselves need to be subject to sanction. Their owners need to experience penalties too.
Banks have a legal existence. They can be made to be subject to legal penalties. I intend to make this my business.
I’m 100% behind putting directors in gaol. For a very long time.
Fine. Gaol directors. But the inescapable fact is the banks – every corporation, in fact – has an existence beyond its directors, shareholders and executives. This is an example of a very great inequality in our system. Large corporations frequently do just as they please. This is absolutely the case in banking. I think the principle of custodial administration could be applied more widely. There are many examples to be found in other industries – in tobacco, gaming, alcohol, manufacturing, in energy (!), in retailing and real estate.
Corporations also have political rights and they use them. They use these rights to procure advantages in relation to their suppliers, their customers, their competitors. When they misuse these advantages there is seldom any effective penalty available. I think we should re-imagine the ways we interact with corporates and how they will be treated when they breach their (often-times, social) licences. They do represent an enormous part of the economy and are essentially super-sovereign in many cases.
I’m not against large corporations. We need them. Scale is important and inescapable. But they should be subject to the law, like every other entity, great and small.
Hopefully this latest exercise has fully resonated with the Turnbull hold-outs including those in our media, who continued to see him as a tortured soul at the mercy of his party, and instead can now see Turnbull as the craven sell out he really is.
‘Whatever it takes’ was Richo’s motto. It’s now firmly Malcolm’s.
briefly @ #693 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 10:11 pm
Corporations are legal persons and can sue and be sued in their own right.
But Directors have duties and if they breach those duties can be dealt with by the civil and criminal law.
Please let it happen!
Reading that article from the Australian, the CBA Directors seem to think it is a case of ousting Narev and a few others, all in good time so as not to damage their reputations.
Give me a break!
Ides of March
Briefly
I think going after the head honchos could really force a culture change without causing damage to shareholders/customers
I can assure you that in my case the bank in question stole from me. No Director executed the actions that deprived me of my money. No charges against a Director would be likely to have been brought or proven. But the bank nevertheless stole from me. They stole from many others. The same bank and its correspondents in this country have continued to do the same thing by means of automated transactions.
I actually went to the local police and asked them to investigate, obtain the documentary evidence and bring charges against the bank. The police were totally nonplussed. They agreed I had been the victim of a theft but felt they could not act on my complaint. The beneficiaries of the theft were not the Directors or officers of the bank. They were the shareholders
.
This has to stop. Corporations have to be answerable to the law…like the rest of us.
It has ever so since the Rum Corps. I do not expect it ever to change.
JimmyDoyle @ #674 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 9:08 pm
Briefly
It is likely that there is a manager who is directly responsible for your loss, and quite possibly an upwards chain that imposed that attitude (possibly all the way to the Board), holding that appropriate people personally (but proportionally) responsible would cause change because they’d have to assess the loss of personal loss of skin rather than making an organisatuonal cost benefit analysis of breaking the law (which is often favorable).
Ides of March Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 9:49 pm Comment #681
Didn’t we have one once? It was called the Commonwealth Bank.