The first Newspoll in three weeks is a 54-46, compared with 53-47 last time. On the primary vote, the Coalition is down a point to 36%, Labor is steady on 38%, the Greens are steady on 9% and One Nation is steady on 8%. Malcolm Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister has also been cut from 46-29 to 42-31, although this isn’t reflected in the leaders’ approval ratings, which have Turnbull’s net rating improving from minus 20% to minus 17% while Bill Shorten is unchanged at minus 20% (we will have to wait a little longer for the exact approval and disapproval numbers). The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1695. The Australian’s paywalled report is here.
UPDATE: The poll also records a narrowing in the lead for same=sex marriage, down six points since mid-August to 57%, with opposition up four to 34%. However, there is markedly higher support among those who have already voted or definitely tend to (61% to 34%) than among the non-definite (38% to 35%). However, only 15% say they have already voted, which surprises on the low side. A further 67% say they will definitely vote, with a further 7% saying they probably will. Support for the survey being held is down five points to 44%, with opposition up three to 46%. Another question finds 62% supporting “guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion if it legislates for same-sex marriage”, with only 18% opposed. Kevin Bonham has a very thorough account of all the polling related to the survey.
IOM
Thats an assumption. Abbot purely on numbers was in the box seat.
Total myth.
As facts attest. Cross benches chose Gillard. OS experience shows this is a myth as well.
Peters will decide on his best interests. There is good argument that is served better by a Labor minority than a Nationals minority
GG
Thats the argument the Nationals panel members were saying on the night.
Labor and Maori first disagreed
DG
Labor are already in formal agreement with the Greens. So in negotiating terms its like the LNP here negotiating. Like not the same
The responses on health insurance are pretty conclusive too.
GT
Winston Peters has more than common with Nats than Lab. You have to keep in mind NZ since 1996 has only had minority govt where as 2010 was the first time in years AUS had it. NZ is used to it. The AUS 2010 example was also where the numbers between lab and the coalition was really close. its not as close in NZ.
guytaur @ #972 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 11:56 am
Do you live in the US?
All that said.
No one knows. We will not know until Peters announces his decision.
However saying the Nationals are in the box seat was what Abbott said and we all saw how that turned out.
Simon Katich @ #975 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 11:58 am
You do realize the carrot is for your reindeer don’t you?
IOM
Yet another Nationals line that is not true.
Peters has as much in common with Labor as Nationals and he has proved it by being Foreign Affairs Minister in a Labor government
P1
I never said anything about living in the US. I just said in a legal setting fact based setting in a court the NO case lost.
No more no less.
Winston Peters has been ministers in both Lab and Nat governments. Hes also formerly a Nat member. His time as foreign minister caused Lab a number of troubles.
zoomster @ #983 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 12:03 pm
And were your facts relevant to the discussion? Or were you trying to divert the topic to another one you might be able to win? Oh, by the way – these are known as “rhetorical questions” – you may want to look that up.
The UN case was Joslin et al. v New Zealand. The NZ Government argued in favour of an intrinsically narrow reading of the Convention. A summary is here:
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/902-1999.html
It is of course a matter of record that NZ abandoned its arguments of 1999 and legislated for marriage equality in 2013.
The main finding of the UN Committee at the time was…
Given the existence of a specific provision in the Covenant on the right to marriage, any claim that this right has been violated must be considered in the light of this provision. Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is the only substantive provision in the Covenant which defines a right by using the term “men and women”, rather than “every human being”, “everyone” and “all persons”. Use of the term “men and women”, rather than the general terms used elsewhere in Part III of the Covenant, has been consistently and uniformly understood as indicating that the treaty obligation of States parties stemming from article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is to recognize as marriage only the union between a man and a woman wishing to marry each other.
That is to say, the Covenant gives rise to a treaty obligation limited to recognising marriage as a heterosexual union.
Big deal. This is does not define the extent of the human rights of LGBTIQ persons. It specifies a Treaty obligation. This finding says a lot about the presumption of invisibility of LGBTIQ persons. The reading applied in 1999 may as well have said that LGBTIQ persons are neither men nor women.
IOM
Yes and that does not discount my point at all.
Assuming the Nationals are in the box seat is the arrogance that is most likely to see Petes seeing his best interest being with Labor.
He may get more of what he wants.
P1
I know all about rhetorical questions. Basically, you shouldn’t use them, because people might answer them in ways you don’t expect. The correct way to use them (if you do) is to follow them up with the answer you’re seeking, to avoid this happening.
Yes, my facts were relevant to the discussion. No, I wasn’t trying to divert the topic.
guytaur @ #1010 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 12:35 pm
Then why are you quoting a jurisdictional ruling that has nothing to do with us? Are you under the impression that US law applies everywhere?
I am so pleased that I am not voting in this tawdry SSM Postal Vote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/troy-toohey/ill-never-forgive-malcolm-turnbull-for-asking-me-to-validate-my-own-existence_a_23217399/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage
P1
Its a legal setting. A court that takes arguments on facts not emotions. It made a ruling.
That ruling is well known.
I do not have to live their to note fact based argument had marriage equality recognise.
Nice try with that red herring though
Then why are you quoting a jurisdictional ruling that has nothing to do with us?
…because it demonstrates the strength of the ‘yes’ argument – it trumps the ‘no’ one in a courtroom situation, where a decision is reached after weighing up the evidence presented by both sides.
Are you under the impression that US law applies everywhere?
No, guytaur isn’t, and he knows that.
briefly @ #1013 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 12:40 pm
Certainly is.
There is also the matter of the unity of NZF. It is likely they would split if they formed a coalition with either side. So minority rule is the most likely result. Labour would be very foolish to form a minority government that depended on either the Gs or NZF. To depend on both would be suicidal.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/04/17/new-zealand-legalises-gay-marriage
Parliament has voted to legalise gay marriage in New Zealand, making it the 13th country to allow it and the first in the Asia-Pacific.
Gay marriage is legal in New Zealand.
The 77-44 vote in parliament on Wednesday night was greeted with cheers and applause from packed public galleries and kicked off celebrations around the country.
New Zealand is the 13th country to legalise gay marriage and the first in the Asia-Pacific.
More than 1000 Australian same-sex couples say they will cross the Tasman to tie the knot.
“Now that marriage equality is only three hours away there will be a flood of couples flying to New Zealand,” said Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Rodney Croome.
NZ Labour’s gay MP Louisa Wall promoted the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and it was passed on conscience votes, with no instructions from parties.
Prime Minister John Key was one of those supporting it.
MPs have been under intense pressure from churches and moral conservative lobby groups during the past few weeks but the final vote was almost identical to those cast during the bill’s previous three stages.
“Excluding a group in society from marriage is oppressive and unacceptable,” Ms Wall said when she launched the third reading debate.
“This is not about church teachings or philosophy, it never was. The principles of justice and equality aren’t served if the key institution of marriage is reserved for heterosexuals only.”
Player One
briefly @ #1013 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 12:40 pm
Big deal.
Certainly is.
Yeah. NZ abandoned its official homophobia in 2013.
Briefly
NZ Labour and Greens already have power/government agreements. They are much more closely aligned than Aus Lan and Grns.
The UN finding related to the extent of a Treaty Obligation. It construed marriage so narrowly that LGBTIQ persons were essentially neither men nor women. It is an absurdity.
guytaur @ #1018 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 12:44 pm
Hmm. Let’s just go through that again, shall we?
1. I point out that the UN Human Rights commission – whose articles and convenants we have ratified – do not define same sex marriage as a ‘human right’. In fact, they go further and specifically allow that ‘equality’ does not rely on a state recognizing same sex marriage. This fact is indisputable.
2. You quote US law, which does not apply to us. This fact is also indisputable.
3. You claim that it is me that us introducing a ‘red herring’.
Can you identify the problem here? (Hint: it is with item 3!)
Ides of March
Briefly
NZ Labour and Greens already have power/government agreements. They are much more closely aligned than Aus Lan and Grns.
Crazy.
Briefly
On your analysis the SDP should abandon Merkel and another four years in power )making 16) because it might fall apart.
This is a prejudice against minority governments that the LNP exploited to bring Gillard down.
If the party had not undermined her she would have won the next election.
Undermining caused the downfall of Gillard not the fact she was in minority government. All that did was make the divisions happen sooner and maybe more publicly if it was not increased availability of social media.
Player One
1. I point out that the UN Human Rights commission – whose articles and convenants we have ratified – do not define same sex marriage as a ‘human right’. In fact, they go further and specifically allow that ‘equality’ does not rely on a state recognizing same sex marriage. This fact is indisputable.
This is not what the actual finding was. You’re conflating two findings, one by the UN Committee and another by the EU.
The EU finding really can be used to argue in favour of reform of the Marriage Act in Australia since such a reform is the only means by which LGBTIQ persons can be assured of the same recognition and protection as heterosexuals in this jurisdiction.
The UN finding was narrow. It specified the extent of a Treaty obligation. On its face, it’s basic premise is that LGBTIQ persons are neither men nor women. It is an absurdity. NZ itself recognised this in legislating ME in 2013.
P1
I only talked about a court case in the US that went through the whole system and was ruled unconstitutional because it treated people as seperate but equal.
You know the same ruling made with interracial couples. Its called inequality for a reason.
I did not bring the UN into it.
However I do not that the UN has LGBTI rights as human rights. e.g. New commissioner. New monsters etc.
Keep the absurdity up and I will have to ignore you on this subject too.
Your faith does not trump fact.
guytaur, the SPD will not form a coalition with the CDU this time. They will become the official Opposition…for their own sake and to better serve the Bund.
BK
Makes you wonder doesn’t it. !
briefly @ #1029 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 12:59 pm
I made no reference to the EU finding. It is as irrelevant to us as the US one.
You can certainly argue that. What you cannot argue is that same sex marriage is a ‘human right’.
P1
So according to you marriage is not a human right?
Peter tell that to all those people getting married out there.
P1
In simpler terms
Do LGBTI people have human rights yes or no
Makes you wonder?
Genesis is a true account. Total Believe 34%”
Ghosts exist and can influence their will on the living. Total Believe 35%
Angels and demons are active in the world. Total Believe 39%
Should we vote for the Coalition. Total Believe 36%
poroti
BK
“Was the poll conducted in Australia or was done in Alabama?
Makes you wonder doesn’t it. !
The story of creation in the book of Genesis is a true account of the first man and woman. Total Believe 34%”
.
Ghosts exist and can influence their will on the living. Total Believe 35%
.
Angels and demons are active in the world. Total Believe 39%
It’s not at all surprising to me. More than half the population believe in the existence of a deity of some kind or other. This is mass delusion. It is superstition on an industrial scale. If one is prepared to subscribe to the existence of a deity, it’s a small step to believing as well in demons, ghosts, wizards and witches. People love make-believe. How else to account for so much of our behaviour?
guytaur @ #1030 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 1:00 pm
No, I did. Because they define the human rights conventions that apply to us. Not the US.
And these rights specifically exclude a right to ‘same sex marriage’.
Ignorance is your right 🙂
I have no faith. Certainly not in your ability to comprehend facts.
guytaur @ #1034 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 1:05 pm
Who’s Peter?
P1
Is marriage a human right yes or no?
P1
Is marriage a human right yes or no??
guytaur @ #1034 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 1:05 pm
The definition of marriage is up to the individual state. In some states polygamy is legal. Does that make it a human right?
guytaur @ #1035 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 1:06 pm
The answer to this irrelevant question is of course ‘yes’.
guytaur @ #1040 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 1:10 pm
Marriage is a social construct.
PO is clutching at an absurdity.
On the reading of the UN Covenant applied in 1999, LGBTIQ persons are neither men nor women. It is an absurdity that the State involved in the case, NZ, itself abandoned in 2013.
P1
Right. Therefore gay people should have the same human rights as all people. That includes being treated as equally under the law.
To do otherwise is to deny human rights.
That simple
P1
Polygamy exists so according to you we should ban all marriages then
The Un and the EU each accept – nay, they declare – we all share an intrinsic right to equality. The expression of equality in this jurisdiction requires the reform of the Marriage Act.
NZ abandoned a homophobic reading of its Treaty obligations some time ago. We should do the same.
guytaur @ #1047 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 1:14 pm
The definition of marriage is up to the local jurisdiction. But, it’s not a human right!
P1
To me this applies because what is available to Heterosexual should also be available to gay people as equal treatment under the law.
You either accept LGBTI people are equal with human rights including being treated equally under the law or you do not.
You cannot argue that Gays have rights and then exclude them from those rights because it conflicts with a religious belief.
No more than the slavers could when they used the bible and belief to argue against the rights of black people.