As related by The Guardian, Essential Research’s fortnight rolling average result for this week has Labor’s two-party lead at 53-47, down from 54-46 last week. As usual we will have to wait until Essential releases the full report later today for the primary votes.
On the same sex marriage survey, an excessive 86% report having voted, of whom 64% say they voted yes, 31% no, and the rest declining to answer. On the question of support for “an indigenous voice to parliament”, 45% expressed support with 16% opposed, while 47% expressed support for an indigenous treaty, with 16% opposed.
Also featured is the latest in the pollster’s semi-regular series on party attributes, with results similar to those from the previous outing in March. Even the Liberal Party’s rating as “divided” is unchanged at 68%, although it is down six points on being “too close to the big corporate and financial interests”, now at 65%. Labor’s biggest change looks to be a six point drop for “moderate”, to 52%. If I understand the report correctly, the Liberal Party is up six on this measure to 53%.
General Buck Turgidson from Dr Strangelove was based on Curtis LeMay.
Confessions @ #1586 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 8:26 pm
I thought the public servant technically terminated the employment contract but that the position was held open to be re-employed with continuity of their entitlements etc in the case that they lose the election
You don’t get to make most of your own rules.
Diogenes @ #1595 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 8:32 pm
Haystacks was based on Donald Trump!
Confessions
Top idea !
No, fess, it’s been that way for over twenty years. I’ve known many, many candidates in that position. Each of them had to come to an arrangement similar to the kinds I described.
Eric Abetz did a google search leading up to one of the Federal elections and claimed that several Labor candidates were ineligible precisely for this reason.
Diogenes
Le May, now there was a scary guy.
Mr Newbie says:
Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 7:55 pm
Agree, if we had compliance we would not be in this situation.
Set in place systems that improve compliance, also the HC should give us clearer guidelines once all referrals are heard.
Constitutional change is not a quick fix or in itself guaranteed to succeed, so the immediate necessity is correcting the issues with the existing system.
Confessions @ #1594 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 5:31 pm
It took three years of correspondence with NBN and my local MP to achieve an upgrade from HFC TO FttP, so I’m very happy to have got a good result 🙂
It’s an interesting parallel to the reasonable steps question. It’s clearly straightforward to resign from your public service job. But what if the actual resignation despite being in the proper form and correctly dated wasn’t activated in the government employer’s system until a date after nominations? Maybe through a bit of a fiddle like described (and very common), or maybe just the HR person that would normally do the paperwork has unexpectedly had to go on maternity leave 2 weeks early so it sat in the in tray for too long.
The HC hasn’t to my knowledge had to make a decision on such a case, but would they really disqualify a candidate who has done everything they could to properly resign simply because some system in the government didn’t act on the paperwork as quickly as they could have?
I don’t buy it.
GG:
But the problem with the current system is that is that any legislative change in other countries regarding citizenship can potentially impact the eligibility of existing Australian MPs.
It’s simply anachronistic and should change.
ratsak
A friend of mine, standing for an unwinnable fourth Senate spot, had a very awkward conversation with their super provider, who was trying to pay them out.
This article raises a problem I’d like some info on. If a union member is in a serious industrial legal dispute with another union member (bullying, etc etc) does the union represent both or what?
“Prof Marshall withdrew as supervisor in November 2015 and Dr El Shafei was dismissed in May 2016 when no replacement supervisor could be found.
Dr El Shafei successfully lodged an unfair dismissal claim.
The Health Department agreed to allow him to return to duties, however the SA Salaried Medical Officers Association opposed his return and took industrial action.”
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/doctors-quit-walk-off-job-over-bullying-allegations-at-hampstead-rehabilitation-centre/news-story/2466fe7f1774275492396fd9509f6046
zoomster:
And yet one of my friends has not had that experience. Admittedly this was in the late 90s so could well be within your 20 year perception.
Sykes v Cleary was originally over whether Cleary should be disqualified as he was a teacher on long service leave. He got booted because he was still teaching even though on a break (and an office of profit)
grimace:
Well done! Your efforts have certainly paid off.
lizzie @ #1502 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 6:46 pm
Sounds like C+ is either not installed or disabled.
Without C+, edit but no quote.
With C+, quote but no edit.
Turnbull turns nasty:
More retreats from “staunchly” held positions.
This guy Turnbull is just another thug, as long as the person he kicks is someone he regards as lower than himself.
I really do not see why Shorten should be bothered by this. If Labor loses a few stragglers, they’re still in minority. If Turnbull loses a few, he’s yesterday’s man.
What_An_Idiot.
poroti
Yes, his answer to every problem was to burn it. He also has a collection of heart-warming quotes.
“I’ll tell you what war is about, you’ve got to kill people, and when you’ve killed enough they stop fighting.”
Confessions @ #1606 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 8:43 pm
The issue is that Turnbull’s victory last year is increasingly shown to be a fraud Constitutionally.
Malcolm can prevaricate and delay. But, the next DD election is almost irresistable.
‘fess
As we’ve seen, someone standing as a candidate does not mean they were eligible to stand as a candidate. It’s possible, in your friend’s case, that no one checked.
Post up on the ReachTEL poll from Hartley:
https://www.pollbludger.net/2017/11/09/reachtel-53-47-nick-xenophon-hartley/
zoomster:
You are correct and I am wrong. From the AEC:
http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/candidates-handbook/nominations.htm#who
Mea culpa!!
When I was working under the provisions of the Queensland Public Service (until mid naughties) there was a section which allowed you to resign for the purpose of contesting an election but if you were unsuccessful you got your position back as if there had been no break in service i.e all entitlements continued.
ROTFLOL. We really are spoilt for choice in SA. 🙁
The poll also includes a preferred premier result which has Xenophon on 43.7%, Steven Marshall on 31.3% and Jay Weatherill on 25%.
Interesting. Local government workers are not considered an office of profit according to the AEC.
No worries, ‘fess – I didn’t realise that the PS actually condoned it!
GG:
I think it goes without saying that Turnbull wholly and solely owns the mess that is this parliament. But that alone doesn’t invalidate the justification for constitutional reform when it comes to S44. Arguably, if anything, it reinforces it.
I haven’t noticed this before –
* C+ issued comment numbers skipping 1601-1606; or
* 5 comments not displayed.
Next displayed –
Ides
As a local councillor, I had one election where (as the candidate) I had two QCs sending me contrary legal advice as to whether I should resign or not. The next time, the ALP didn’t seem at all bothered by it, and focussed on whether I was a Lithuanian citizen.
However, there are at least three candidates for Indi that I know of who resigned from local council to run, mostly sparked by a Nats candidate who did so against the advice given to him by the Nats, but it seemed to establish a bit of an expectation that you should.
Again, on the reading of Sykes that Labor seems to base their processes on it doesn’t.
In Sykes it’s explicitly stated that if an MP were to be conferred with a foreign citizenship without their knowledge or consent that they would have a reasonable time to renounce it under the reasonable steps test once it came to their attention.
Then as it comes time to renominate each candidate is expected to make inquiries. If that citizenship had not been discovered previously it should be now (no leniency on not discovering discoverable citizenships at nomination), and dealt with.
Again under the interpretation Labor has used, if the foreign power doesn’t reply, no problems, you’ve taken your reasonable steps.
So Frydenberg (if he was indeed automatically made a citizen rather than just have the right to apply) in 2011 would have been in no danger so long as he got onto the job of renouncing as soon as he discovered he was Hungarian. If he didn’t discover that between the 2010 and 2013 elections then there would be no issue. (If he ignored some pretty compelling evidence that might have been a big problem, but that’s another matter). Even if him finding out was when someone referred him to the HC he would have been green lighted if he’d gotten onto the job of renouncing asap.
Come the 2013 election though and the responsibility is on his head to discover what has happened and take the appropriate action. If (and it still seems to be an if) he was a Hungarian Citizen from 2011 then he was clearly ineligible to stand in 2013 as he hasn’t taken steps to renounce. Again Labor’s contention is that once he discovered it so long as he filled out the paperwork and sent it off with any required fees then he’s good. So no more a problem for him than someone who acquired citizenship by descent at birth.
Of course the alternative opinion is that Josh would have been fucked in 2013 even if he had discovered as he was doing his due diligence for nomination and taken reasonable steps but Hungary hadn’t got back to him with his confirmation. Even I’d find that harsh on Josh.
zoomster:
Obviously my friends were able to go back to their jobs no questions asked. So PS clearly did look away.
I made the resignation point yesterday and someone (sorry I forget who it was) responded saying that in the APS they have it in an agreement that if they want to stand for election they resign but all their entitlements, seniority and the like were held over and they would be reemployed with all their previous conditions intact if they were unsuccessful.
Obviously all bets would be off if they won.
I don’t know how wide spread this sort of agreement is.
Maybe other posters are aware of others?
Bloomberg takes on the Koch bros.
Bloomberg, a UN special envoy on climate change and former mayor of New York city, has funded a $164m campaign in the US since 2010, during which time more than half the nation’s coal-fired power plants have been closed.
On Thursday, he announced a $50m (£38m) plan to expand the programme into Europe and then the rest of the world. The money will support grassroots campaigns, research on the health impacts of coal and legal action against coal plants that are breaking pollution rules.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/09/michael-bloombergs-war-on-coal-goes-global-with-50m-fund
Would I be right in thinking that a State public servant is not eligible to run for Federal Parliament without resigning? I read talk of police officers, nurses etc. If this is so I can’t understand local government being ok?
Ides:
In the recent WA local govt elections there was a local candidate who was an employee of the council. She took unpaid leave to contest, but on election night after it was declared she’d won she immediately tendered her resignation.
Barney
I don’t think it’s like that in the Victorian public service – my main experience is with teachers, and they basically had to get under the table agreements with their regional head.
shiftaling:
From the AEC:
http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/candidates-handbook/nominations.htm#who
Noting of course that the AEC says “should”, not “must”.
I wonder if this is a get-out clause.
So Turnbull is not willing to refer the Labor cases to the high court as that would open the floodgates for Labor referring the Liberals that are under the cloud; so he rings up a NXT senator and tries to talk her into self referral.
Turnbull should just face up instead of trying to be too smart by half..
shiftaling
Yes, you’re right.
I think the argument (it’s a long time since I read the briefs!) is that local councils don’t have constitutional recognition, so they’re not ‘under the Crown’.
Ides of March says:
Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:57 pm
That’s presumably because no one works in Local Government anymore, they’ve all been outsourced to contractors. 🙂
Is local government recognised in the constitution?
Zoomster
I think thats a fair argument to make. Not being in the constitution they are not an office of profit of the crown.
CTar1 @ #1630 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 9:00 pm
Asha Leu says:
Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 7:59 pm
Also, forgive my ignorance here, but what on earth does MAD stand for?
Bit of a youngin. Mutually assured destruction.
The strategy of MAD was fully declared in the early 1960s, primarily by United States Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
briefly @ #1474 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 3:14 pm
Properly put and debated, a proposal to amend 44(i) would easily be defeated in a referendum.
I’m pretty sure Mattheson remained a Councillor on Campbelltown Council after he won Macarthur up until the next Council election.