The latest fortnightly YouGov poll for Fifty Acres maintains the series’ established pattern of low primary votes for the major parties and strong minor party preference flows to the Coalition. There is a stable 50-50 two-party result derived from primary votes that would land it in the 52-48 to 53-47 range on 2016 preferences: 34% for the Coalition, down two; 32% for Labor, down one; 11% for the Greens, up one; and 9% for One Nation, up one.
Other findings from the poll are a 34-27 lead for Malcolm Turnbull on preferred prime minister, with an unusually high 38% preferring a “not sure” option; 60% support for same-sex marriage, with 28% opposed; 51% preferring a plebiscite on the matter, compared with 29% for a decision by parliament; 36% believing Turnbull’s position would be threatened by Coalition MPs crossing the floor on the matter, compared with 29% who thought otherwise; and 33% thinking referendums should be held more often, with 26% saying too many such proposals are being made of issues that should be left to parliament.
The poll was conducted Thursday to Monday from a sample of 1005.
Barney in Go Dau @ #1441 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 4:27 pm
Oh dear. Now I understand. You assume the outcome you want, and then argue from that basis. This logical fallacy is called “begging the question”, and if you fail to spot that you’re doing it, you are going to end up awfully confused as to how people could possibly disagree with you.
[Diogenes
Barney
For argument’s sake, why shouldn’t three people who love each other be allowed to get married?]
Simple,
Because the Marriage Act itself specifically describes those sort of relationships as not a marriage.
No other reason really.
Diogenes @ #1445 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 4:30 pm
Hoo boy! I wouldn’t want to be you right about now!
Barney in Go Dau @ #1452 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 4:37 pm
You mean for the same reason two people of the same sex can’t get married?
[Player One
Barney in Go Dau @ #1441 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 4:27 pm
You really need things spelt out.
marriage means the union of two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Oh dear. Now I understand. You assume the outcome you want, and then argue from that basis. This logical fallacy is called “begging the question”, and if you fail to spot that you’re doing it, you are going to end up awfully confused as to how people could possibly disagree with you.]
I assumed nothing it’s the logically outcome of the argument.
Diogenes – Corporations are not the same as unions. Corporations are artificial entities created by Parliament to give their investors protection from liability. They have NO political rights. They have NO entitlement to freedom of speech. Zero. Only living breathing citizens have that. Unions, on the other hand, are made up of average Australians who have come together to exercise their political rights. Totally different. Allowing major corporations (usually foreign owned) to use their massive balance sheets to run campaigns against Australian governments is a gross perversion of our democracy.
It didn’t stop Jack Thompson right? He enjoyed the close company of two women, who were sisters.
4AA De facto relationships
Diogenes and Puff, It turns out the family law act 1975 recognises more relationships as de facto than you might realise. It is possible to be married and in a de facto relationship, or in more than one de facto relationship at the same time. So maybe it is also tome to recognise relationships with more than two people.
Meaning of de facto relationship
(1) A person is in a de facto relationship with another person if:
(a) the persons are not legally married to each other; and
(b) the persons are not related by family (see subsection (6)); and
(c) having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.
Paragraph (c) has effect subject to subsection (5).
Working out if persons have a relationship as a couple
(2) Those circumstances may include any or all of the following:
(a) the duration of the relationship;
(b) the nature and extent of their common residence;
(c) whether a sexual relationship exists;
(d) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them;
(e) the ownership, use and acquisition of their property;
(f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;
(g) whether the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory as a prescribed kind of relationship;
(h) the care and support of children;
(i) the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.
(3) No particular finding in relation to any circumstance is to be regarded as necessary in deciding whether the persons have a de facto relationship.
(4) A court determining whether a de facto relationship exists is entitled to have regard to such matters, and to attach such weight to any matter, as may seem appropriate to the court in the circumstances of the case.
(5) For the purposes of this Act:
(a) a de facto relationship can exist between 2 persons of different sexes and between 2 persons of the same sex; and
(b) a de facto relationship can exist even if one of the persons is legally married to someone else or in another de facto relationship.
When 2 persons are related by family
(6) For the purposes of subsection (1), 2 persons are related by family if:
(a) one is the child (including an adopted child) of the other; or
(b) one is another descendant of the other (even if the relationship between them is traced through an adoptive parent); or
(c) they have a parent in common (who may be an adoptive parent of either or both of them).
For this purpose, disregard whether an adoption is declared void or has ceased to have effect.
In SA, Kouts privatises the Lands Titles Office for $1.6B. They must have been making a fortune from for it to be worth that much.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/state-government-privatises-lands-title-services-in-16-billion-windfall/news-story/fe59d68e8044f2efd24fbdd6cf170af5
Diogenes @ #1459 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 4:43 pm
Perhaps it is the opportunities for malfeasance that attracted the premium?
Diogenes @ #1459 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 4:43 pm
Just as stupid and wrong as NSW doing it.
Drat, getting flung back in time again.
Diogenes @ #1459 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 4:43 pm
Maybe not.
But you can bet the new owners will, now that they have been handed a private monopoly.
[Player One
Barney in Go Dau @ #1452 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 4:37 pm
[Diogenes
Barney
For argument’s sake, why shouldn’t three people who love each other be allowed to get married?]
Simple,
Because the Marriage Act itself specifically describes those sort of relationships as not a marriage.
No other reason really.
You mean for the same reason two people of the same sex can’t get married?]
No, You’ve never read the Marriage Act have you?
The only mention of same sex marriage in the Act is the second Howard amendment in which legal same sex marriages performed overseas would not be recognised in Australia.
Things like polygamy and incest are listed as the type of relationships that can not be recognised as a marriage.
Same sex marriage is not mentioned here.
That is why simply amending the definition and removing the second Howard amendment would leave you with same sex marriage being legal.
Re Lizzie @2:50PM: @AusElectoralCom enrolment site currently overwhelmed.
It would be ironic indeed if a side effect of this fake plebiscite was to motivate lots of younger / left leaning people to enroll to vote.
I just watched Shorten’s MPI speech on the postal survey. It was a cracker aimed squarely at Turnbull.
The Family law act recognises polygamy
6 Polygamous marriages
For the purpose of proceedings under this Act, a union in the nature of a marriage which is, or has at any time been, polygamous, being a union entered into in a place outside Australia, shall be deemed to be a marriage.
“In SA, Kouts privatises the Lands Titles Office for $1.6B. They must have been making a fortune from for it to be worth that much.”
It will enable the government to buy a few more hours of battery storage.
bemused
It certainly looks like an essential government service which shouldn’t be sold off. I can’t believe it’s so lucrative. $1.6B is an awful lot of money in SA. That’s about the equivalent of $7B if they are doing the same in NSW.
I’m surprised anybody’s buying the SA Lands Title Office. If I were an investor, I’d wait another 7 months to see if the Liberals get in next year and wait for Rob Lucas to sell off everything at mad discount prices.
I’m feelin you Emma
I haven’t bothered wading through all the turgid prose today, largely devoted to one topic and saying the same few things over and over again, so I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this.
RN Breakfast this morning had an interesting segment with Dr Anne Summers that was well worth listening to.
I hope her address is broadcast and a transcript provided.
It is items like this that expose all the petty ABC haters for what they are; a bunch of sooks.
In NSW they lifted all the fees to fatten the operation for private business. For private business it is THE monopoly. Guaranteed return. Unfortunately, the LTO in Sydney will lose massive amounts of corporate knowledge. All those people who worked there for decades and knew the land titles system inside out will be lost. Huge fuckups are inevitable.
I hate the idea of the sale of the Lands Titles Office. So will we wake up one day to find our house title has disappeared or been magically transferred to someone else? I do not trust for-profit businesses. Not one little bit.
Diogenes @ #1469 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 4:55 pm
Read what I posted again.
It is unlikely to be making much now as it is run as a service. But make it a private monopoly and they will just jack the prices up, slash services and make a fortune.
Lizzie re the new NSW interurban trains. A poor quote from the SMH. They do fit the tracks, just not the curves, tunnels and stations.
It’s one thing to deliver infrastructure but for a party that claims it wants to deliver value for money this government is poor on delivery. I’m not an engineer but the new light rail looks to be grossly over engineered. Would love to have shares in a cement company.
The bridge to nowhere was 50% over budget. The light rail is over budget. The wasteconnex was reported to be once again blowing its budget. The new metro to Bankstown requires the closure, demolition and rebuilding of track and stations as does the Blue Mountains line so the new trains will fit.
What the libs have consistently done is announce and commence projects without fully costed plans. Inevitably the cost blows out when they hit a roadblock that should have been factored in before the project began.
And then there’s Newcastle.
I can’t think of too many government businesses which are monopolies which they have privatised.
antonbruckner11 @ #1473 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:00 pm
What usually happens is those staff will stay, at least until the knowledge has been transferred, and then most will gradually be ‘let go’ to use that cute American expression.
Diogenes @ #1477 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:03 pm
Really? You can’t be trying.
In Victoria it is the suburban rail, all the electricity and gas assets, the port for starters.
@ alias – The national anthem thing was not funded by emergency funding as far as I am aware, which is the subject of the court case against the postal survey.
Turnbull could have put a bill to the HoR, and then the Senate, which would have allocated the $122 million. If that bill had passed, then the postal plebiscite, through either the AEC or ABS, would likely have gone ahead without a challenge. he didn’t do this, choosing to use emergency funding powers instead.
Turnbull is overstepping his authority by bypassing the Senate through the use of emergency powers. I had to invoke Godwins law, but that’s some Senator Palpatine level shit right there.
Aqualung @ #1476 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:03 pm
SMSFs with shares in the big infrastructure companies.
bemused
The article says the government will still set fees and charges but I suppose we all know what that really means. And customers will “not notice any difference to the service”. And I suppose we all know what that really means. And there will be no job losses.
Sounds a bit too good to be true, doesn’t it.
Speaking of turgid, once again the resident purveyor of pointless and unprovoked snark, simply cannot help himself.
SA LTO
There are a myriad of contract terms like ensuring adequate numbers and experience/capability of staff.
What could possibly go wrong? And whats the big deal about property tenure safeguards anyway? It is only 1 of pillars our economic success and security is based on.
Once again thanks for the info Voice Endeavour. I wonder how it would play out? Would those going to the High Court be seeking to block the holding of the vote, or to have it retrospectively declared invalid? I suppose if the central point is that the Government has over-reached its authority in seeking to spend the money, then perhaps the High Court would consider holding some kind of speedy hearing to see if it is inclined to order that the Government is not entitled to spend the money. But could such a full hearing be completed in time?
“marriage means the union of two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”
What’s this ‘life’ business?
Shirley, it’s more: “marriage means the union of people to the exclusion of all others, except for bits on the side – either known or unknown – voluntarily entered into, until divorce/death intervenes”
If people boycott the SSM popularity contest then the forces that want the status quo to remain win. The only way to make these people fuck off forever is to vote Yes and by a big margin.
mb @ 4.13
“It seems rather inconsistent that Shorten, having consistently blocked a comprehensive plebiscite conducted by the AEC (and one which he previously supported), looks like he will tacitly support the stupid postal ballot/survey by campaigning for a Yes vote.”
—————————————————-
It’s totally consistent. If he could stop this farce he would, but he can’t, so he is not going to sit it out.
Barney in Go Dau @ #1464 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 4:50 pm
I have, actually. Although it’s been a while.
Not really. It is also disallowed implicitly by the statement that marriage is a “union between a man and a woman”. Same sex marriage does not need to be explicitly mentioned here to do that, nor do various other types of marriage (such as polygamy).
Neither is polygamy, as far as I can recall. Because they don’t need to be. See previous point.
I’m kind of lost as to what your point is. That redefining marriage requires a change to the marriage act? Well, that much is obvious. Does it require one change or two or more? Who cares?
What’s the bet the Martin Place tent city is “quietly” moved in the middle of the night?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
Seeing as you pride yourself as some supposed centrist pragmatist, it is rather wretchedly hypocritical of you to attack Labor for taking steps to deal with the new situation that is unfolding. Are seriously suggesting that the only way for Labor to be “consistent” is to be totally silent?
Labor has consistently opposed peoples’ rights being put up to a vote. Simple as that.
Because of circumstances outside the party’s control, a postal vote may take place. Because of Turnbull’s gross abrogation of his basic moral duty, he is “too busy” to campaign in favour.
The homophobes in the ACL have already launched their smear campaign on gay people.
It falls to Labor to campaign for LGBT people, to counter the fear campaign of lies from the right.
I find it galling that in your usual political GAME of rushing to attack Labor using whatever the issue du jour is, you accuse Labor of playing political games!
The reality is that the Labor Party is the only party that has consistently listened to the LGBT community, which DOES NOT WANT a vote on its rights.
I’m curious – have you actually ASKED whether your close family member wants every single person in the country to be asked to pass judgement on THEIR relationship?
I’m pretty conflicted. My preference is still to send back a defaced ballot paper as a protest against this farce, but if the AME and other LGTBIQ groups follow Shorten’s lead and decide to take part, then my sending back an abstention won’t have any impact at all. In that case I will follow the lead.
I think Shorten has taken the position he has because he sees this campaign as one where he can demonstrate his leadership credentials in the same light as Turnbull’s vacillation on a matter he historically strongly supported. It could well be a game changer for him and Labor in terms of public perception of character.
One practical step is to nail down every Coalition MP who is a likely “No” vote in the postal vote on what they intend to do if the national vote is “Yes” – including a situation where the national vote is “Yes” but their electorate vote is “No”. They should all be put on the record with no wriggle room. I’m making that very inquiry of my own Liberal MP.
TPOF what I’d like to see is a standard printout (maybe AME can do this) which protests the process and you slip the printout into the reply envelope alongside the official ‘ballot’. That way it may itself get counted.
Interestingly, about the Lands Title Office stuff:
In Victoria, about 2009, I had cause to seek out information about some properties – my wretched brother and his then fiancee doing dirty deeds.
Anyway, whilst one had to pay for some of the documents, it was rather easy to access through Landata, anything you needed to know about the property.
A couple of days ago, a friend asked if I could look up something about his neighbour’s property.
No problems, except now, all it will give you is an outline of the said property, and no other details. Unless, of course, you fork out the dollars.
No wonder the Land Titles offices are pulling in the bucks, and making them lucrative business propositions.
“It’s totally consistent. If he could stop this farce he would, but he can’t, so he is not going to sit it out.”
Agree. It may not be a massive game changer…unless it leads to Turnbul getting the flick and the whole “revolving door of PM’s” thing. which with Abbott exploiting this to the max it could well do.
However, its hard to see how the ALP can lose anything politically from this. Good time and issue for Shorten to go for the throat.
Aqualung @ #1490 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:24 pm
I heard, already, that it had to be moved by Friday.
Diogenes
Barney
For argument’s sake, why shouldn’t three people who love each other be allowed to get married?
It wouldn’t bother me, and various religious sects have been doing it for yonks. The bible condones it.
But at the moment in Australia, I think it would be difficult to get into legislation.
Same sex marriage of two people first, three or more later!
The first item on the ABC radio national news before PM was “activists had lodged a challenge with the High Court”.
No mention of which activists. No mention on PM. No mention here.
Any info?
kezza2 @ #1497 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:33 pm
Out of sight and out of mind is a well established principle among the right in Australian politics.