Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor

Essential Research records support for a postal survey on same-sex marriage dissolving on contact with reality, while voting intention remains unchanged.

The Guardian reports that Essential Research’s fortnight rolling average has Labor’s two-party preferred lead unchanged at 54-46, with the Coalition (37%), Labor (39%), the Greens (9%) and One Nation (8%) all unchanged on the primary vote. The poll also records 39% approval of the postal ballot on same-sex marriage with 47% opposed, just one week after the same question elicited respective results of 43% and 38%.

The survey also found that 33% considered the top marginal tax rate of 47% too high, compared with 12% for too low and 39% for about right. A suite of questions on the Turnbull government’s handling of various policy areas recorded negative results for “the implementation of the national broadband network, schools and universities funding, addressing climate change, funding health and hospitals, implementing a fair tax system and ensuring reliable and affordable energy”, with the only positive result apparently being for “protecting Australians from terrorism”. Only 15% reported satisfaction with the government’s policies and progress in implementing them, with a further 28% reckoning only that it hadn’t made enough progress, and 41% expressing disapproval for its policies and decisions.

Other questions related to respondents’ financial situations, with 53% reporting that their income had fallen behind the rising cost of living, 25% saying it had remained even, and only 15% saying it had improved.

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.

2,292 comments on “Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor”

  1. sonar

    Are they all so stupid that they don’t understand what giving the correct information on a parliament job application form is.?

    I wonder what people like Hunt, whatever you think of him, a ‘Fullbright’ scholarship winner (not an easy ‘get’) who won a place at Yale and achieved a Masters in International Relations thinks when sees that BishJnr had on her resume for years that she ‘attended’ Harvard Business School inferring some scholarship effort.

    The resume was changed a couple of years ago after being challenged to say she attended an 8 week ‘summer’ course at Harvard Business School that was paid for by the Legal Partnership she was part of as presumably part of a partnership bonus program … i.e. anyone who can pay can attend and gets some mickey mouse ‘certificate’ saying she attended ‘Harvard’. (Americans executives are frequent attendees at these sort of courses when the short course are available at Paris Universities that cover the 6 week period over Christmas / New Year.)

    Even Hunt must have thought that her claim was a ‘w#nk’!

    But maybe they just don’t care and the same attitude applies to meeting the constitutional requirement to make sure you have no other citizenship.

  2. dio

    Yes, I think that we need the HC to set the guidelines and then have an audit.

    I agree that an ‘audit’ of sorts should take place after the HC rules.

    The presiding officers should have all sitting members complete a new form, to be signed, witnessed and lodged with the AEC declaring that they meet the requirements on citizenship set out by the Constitutional and in accordance with the HC ruling.

    One off and simple and after that no ‘quarter’ should be given on the requirement to meet the not very onerous requirement.

  3. CTar1
    dio

    Yes, I think that we need the HC to set the guidelines and then have an audit.

    I agree that an ‘audit’ of sorts should take place after the HC rules.

    The presiding officers should have all sitting members complete a new form, to be signed, witnessed and lodged with the AEC declaring that they meet the requirements on citizenship set out by the Constitutional and in accordance with the HC ruling.

    One off and simple and after that no ‘quarter’ should be given on the requirement to meet the not very onerous requirement.
    *********************************************************
    I disagree. They have already signed this form at least once (I don’t know if they have to do it each election) and these are supposed to be people who can understand what the implications of legislation is – given they make it.
    I don’t think any of them should be let off the hook. The statement from the AEC on the form is pretty clear and I know very few people who wouldn’t know if their parents were born elsewhere that there may just be a possibility they could get dual citizenship.

  4. More Trump staff contemplate the cost to their reputations. They can’t say they weren’t warned –

    A parade of business executives broke ties with Trump on Wednesday, a day after he blamed white nationalists and counter-protesters in equal measure for the weekend clashes that left one woman dead.

    Now, frustrated aides could be next. Trump’s remarks have left some wondering if sticking by the president comes at too high a cost to their reputations.

    “A lot of us joined this administration thinking we could bring to it the experience and expertise that the president didn’t have an opportunity to gain in his business career, and to encourage some restraint in what he says publicly and to our allies,” said one senior official who is contemplating whether to resign.

    “After yesterday, it’s clear that there is no way for anyone, even a Marine general, to restrain his (Trump’s) impulses or counter what he sees on TV and reads on the web.”

    It was hoped that retired General John Kelly, Trump’s new chief of staff, could impose some form of discipline on Trump that his predecessor, Reince Priebus, could not.

    But Kelly stood with his eyes fixed on the floor when Trump veered off-script at his Manhattan office tower on Tuesday. The president accused the protesters, who rallied against neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups in Charlottesville, of being “very, very violent.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-staff-idUSKCN1AX069

  5. LHHoA

    My thought was that sometime the merry-go-round needs to stop.

    The continuing havoc needs to have a line drawn.

    It’s something that a member could not ignore or later seek to say they ‘thought’ they had no problem with.

  6. Barney in Go Dau
    A bit of history lesson on section 44.

    briefly, you might want read this.

    Thanks BiGD. The thing is….

    S34 sets out the qualifications for election and clearly allows naturalised subjects to nominate and serve. This was copied directly into the Electoral Act 1918 alongside S.44 which sets out grounds for disqualification.

    Essentially, any person would qualify for election if they were an elector and satisfied a residence requirement. Electors certainly included dual nationals. The inclusion of a residence requirement also anticipates that newcomers would acquire political rights. Essentially, representatives were to be drawn from electors, whose eligibility was defined…

    (Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)

    PART VI.-QUALIFICAIONS AND DIsQUALIFICATIONS FOR
    ENROLMENT AND FOR VOTING.
    39.-(1.) Subject to the disqualification** set out in this Part, all persons not under twenty-one years of age, whether male or female, and to vote, married or unmarried-
    (a) who have lived in Australia for six months continuously, and
    (b) who are natural-born or naturalized subjects of the King,
    -shall be entitled to enrolment …
    (2.) In addition to the persons specified in the last preceding -sub-section, all persons who are or have been members of the Forces within the meaning of the Commonwealth Electoral (War
    Time) Act 1917 and who-
    (a) have lived in Australia for six months continuously, and
    (b) are natural-born or naturalized subjects of the King
    ….shall be entitled to enrolment …

    ** Disqualifications…..

    (4.) No person who is of unsound mind, and no person attainted’ of treason, or who has’ been convicted and is under sentence for any offence punishable under the law of any part of the King’s dominions by imprisonment for one year or longer, shall be entitled to have his- name placed on or retained on any roll or to vote at any Senate election or House of Representatives election.

    (5.) No aboriginal native of Australia, Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific (except New Zealand) shall be entitled to have his name placed on or retained on any roll or to vote at any Senate election or House of Representatives election unless so entitled under section fbrty-one of the Constitution.

    Why would the Constitution in one section allow dual nationals to serve and in another section disallow them? This makes not a whole lot of sense.

  7. briefly; one section allows persons to vote; one section allows persons to represent. Only Australian citizens, with no other allegiance may represent.
    You can be naturalised and represent, providing you have renounced any other allegiance.

  8. Lord..the primary qualification for election was to be an elector or eligible to become one. There was really no difference.

    The question that bugs me is who they intend to disqualify? Certainly, out the outset dual nationals were elected without question. Non-nationals were disqualified under 44(i). Even if non-nationals had acquire voting rights, they were never to be permitted to serve in the Parliament….

  9. briefly,

    You do realise the section you attached is related to voter eligibility.

    [PART VI.-QUALIFICAIONS AND DIsQUALIFICATIONS FOR
    ENROLMENT AND FOR VOTING.
    ]

  10. I particularly object to giving politicians a pass when they impose such strict, and ambiguous, rules and penalties on those receiving state assistance.

  11. BiGD…yes, I do realise. I quoted this deliberately. The primary qualification to serve in the Parliament was to be eligible to vote. This eligibility was widely constructed under s34 and incorporated into the Act in 1918. MPs were to be drawn from the body of electors.

    The inclusion of s44(i) is such that even if voting rights were relaxed by the Parliament (and they have been), some classes of voters would always be disqualified. Since s.34 also contemplated that dual-nationals would have voting rights and therefore would be eligible to serve as MPs, s44(i) could not be aimed at them.

    So who was it aimed at?

    It makes sense that it was aimed at non-nationals, who would always be disqualified from election even if they received the franchise.

  12. Lord…me too.

    But consider the case of my oldest and dearest friend. He is of Greek extraction but was born in Subiaco in 1955. His parents were naturalised Australians. Back in the day, they would have been eligible for election to the Parliament by virtue of the grant of Australian citizenship. Their son, my old friend, is likely to be a Greek citizen by descent. He was born here but on the face of things is ineligible to stand for Parliament because of an accident of his parents’ birth. This is whacky. My friend has never known any country but this one, but the ruling in Sykes suggests he must go to lengths to disavow any possible disloyalty. It is just rubbish.

  13. Barney in Go Dau (and others),

    It’s the space-time continuum vortex. Or, it’s Labor’s fault.

    The situation could be worse: you could be thrown back to a 1950s Abbott-era.

  14. Recent polling in NZ suggests the National party don’t have a majority in their own right and Labour have all the momentum. The Greens have had a scandal and lost all their seats to Labour and NZ First have the balance. Could be a very interesting election.

    Another dose of Bishop and NZ Labour are over the top 🙂

  15. Back, PollBludger is definitely in a Universe all of it’s own. That was weird!

    briefly,

    but the ABC article clear sites references in the debate for section 44 that the intent was to exclude people who were dual citizenship.

    [Sir John Hannah Gordon was a South Australian delegate to the Australasian Federal Convention that drafted the constitution.

    He wanted to add the words “or who has not since been naturalised” to Section 44.

    That would have allowed people to be elected if they had become British subjects.

    But he was shut down by others who were there:

    Patrick McMahon Glynn: “You cannot have two allegiances.”
    Sir Edmund Barton: “No; a man might have to go out of our parliament to serve against us.”
    Sir George Turner: “He may be minister of defence.”
    ]

  16. Emma Alberici is being quite unnecessarily adversarial to Malcolm Roberts on Lateline. You could feel her determination to rip into him before he’d had the chance to say hello. It’s not as if he needs any of her help in exposing himself as an idiot.

  17. Tony Burke’s warning was pretty stark today: just imagine if Turnbull goes overseas and Barnarby Joyce is sworn in as Deputy PM.

    He loses his court case and it’s decided he was never a member of parliament. We will have had a non-elected person as our Deputy PM while the realPM was out of the country, having only recently committed the nation to a warlike footing against North Korea.

    I couldn’t imagine greater dereliction of duty on Turnbull’s behalf.

    Now that Joyce’s own Deputy is also in doubt, we could face a national fuck-up of truly gargantuan proportions.

  18. [ag0044
    Barney in Go Dau (and others),

    It’s the space-time continuum vortex. Or, it’s Labor’s fault.

    The situation could be worse: you could be thrown back to a 1950s Abbott-era.]

    But then from the little bits of history that I know I could make a sh!tload of money and there would be no T. Abbott to worry about. 🙂

  19. Has Mr Turnbull expressed a view on that woman’s purile and patheic stunt and the hateful message that underlay it?

    Has he expressed any approval for Mr Brandis’ appropriate and measured admonition of the woman?

    No?

    I thought not.

  20. BB

    That’s not strictly true.

    He was duly elected in a process conducted and confirmed by the AEC.

    He remains an elected Member of Parliament until Parliament is dissolved before the next election or the HC rules that he was ineligible to have been part of the last election.

  21. Barney… elected under false pretenses, wittingly or not. Turnbull could have asked Joyce to to stand down, as Burke suggested, but has insufficient influence in the party or authority to do so. If it turns out Burke’s advice was correct, Turnbull would have to go. He couldn’t say he hadn’t been warned.

    Whatever way onelooks at it… it’s a fuck-up just the same. Monumental. More than a bad week. Or even a “worst week”. A government killer after everything Turnbull has said, and the warnings directed at him. You couldn’t recover from it… could you?

  22. William,

    I agree she let her emotions get the better of her especially at the end with the ABC.

    Roberts was looking for a fight and she gave him exactly that.

  23. BB,

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s a major f@#% up and convention would suggest that they should stand down while they await their HC hearings, but by the letter of the law they are doing nothing wrong.

    In one way it’s good as it keeps them in the spotlight as a constant reminder of the ongoing shambles.

  24. If the ministers are found to be ineligible, I do not see how they can keep their ministries as they will not have been validly Members of Parliament/Senators and thus will have used up their 3 months outside Parliament and thus cannot be ministers. Even if Turnbull advises they keep their jobs, I do not see how the Governor-General could let them keep their positions.

  25. Barney in Go Dau

    There appear to have been quite a few variations on the theme….this one from Sydney in 1897 for example

    Clause 45. ”A ny person (I) who has taken an oath or made a declaration or aclmowledg- ment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence, to a foreie,”ll power, or has done any act whereby he has become a subject ora citizen, or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen, of a foreign power ; or (u) who is an undischarged bankrupt or in- solvent, or a public defaulter; or (rrr) who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime, shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the senate or of the house of representatives until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the expiration or remission of the sentence, or a pardon, or release, or otherwise,”

  26. TV also reporting one gunman involved

    A van has crashed into a crowd of pedestrians in Barcelona’s busy city centre, injuring several people, police say.

    Videos posted to social media showed people lying on the ground in the street of the northern Spanish city on Thursday afternoon, with police and others gathered around them.

    Police cordoned off the broad, popular street, ordering stores and nearby Metro and train stations to close.

    They asked people to stay away from the area so as not to get in the way of emergency services. A helicopter hovered over the scene.

    Police had not confirmed how many people had been injured, but local media put the number as high as 25.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-18/van-crashes-into-dozens-of-people-in-barcelona/8818326

  27. The idea as suggested by BiDG below that the framers of the Constitution intended there to be a large pool of ‘eligible voters’ who must hold British citizenship and then a subset of them who can ONLY have British citizenship who could be members of parliament has logic going with it.

    The parliamentarians after all have been granted ‘super’ voting powers by the ordinary voters so extra requirements on their qualification don’t seem to be illogical at all.

  28. Question

    Another dose of Bishop and NZ Labour are over the top

    Maybe they’ll grant BishJnr honorary membership of NZ Labour!

    🙂

  29. BiGD

    Here is the record from which the ABC quotes were taken. This can be found on page 409, items [735-737]

    Official report of the National Australasian Convention debates, Adelaide, 22nd March to 5th May, 1897

    https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/papers/govpub/VPARL1897No24p401-500.pdf

    Clause 44.-Any person-

    I. ‘Who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power, or has done any act whereby he has become 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 member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives until the disability is removed by the grant of a discharge etc…

    Mr. GORDON – I should like to ask Mr Barton whether there is anything in this point: A number of German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power, especially those who have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it not be necessary to add after “power;” in line 27, the words “or who has not since been naturalized as provided in clause 30”?

    Mr.GLYNN – You cannot have two allegiances.
    Mr. BARTON – No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against us.
    Sir GEORGE TURNER – He may be Minister of Defence.

    Mr. CARRUTTHERS.- I would like to put a case to Mr. Barton. It may happen that treaties
    may be in force between, say, England and Japan. There is a treaty almost in operation on the very lines I am citing that will give to a British subject travelling in Japan practically the same rights and privileges as he would enjoy as a citizen of his own country. Surely it is never intended that by a person travelling in another country, who becomes entitled to privileges conferred on him by a treaty between two high powers, he should be disqualified from holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. Our members of Parliament who are hard-worked take their summer trips, and it may be that some of them may come back and find they have lost their seats as a result of this clause.
    Clause read agreed to.

    On its face, any person, whether a British subject or a non-subject, who had assigned their allegiance to a foreign power or had done an act to acquire citizenship of a foreign power would be disqualified from election.

    Gordon’s suggestion would have allowed present or past non-subjects who had made expressions of foreign allegiance to reverse their effect by undergoing naturalisation. This is not quite the same as being barred from serving because of dual nationality. It imposes disqualification even if naturalisation occurs.

    The convention effectively agreed that expressions of foreign allegiance by any person could not be repaired other than by the Parliament. This has an almost penal flavour to it. British subjects would forfeit their some of their political rights and non-subjects would not be able to relieve their impairment even if they naturalised.

    It still cannot make any sense to confer political rights to the naturalised subject/citizen in S34 and then deprive them of those rights in S44.

Comments are closed.