Newspoll breaks out of its long-established 53-47 to 54-46 rut by recording Labor with a two-party lead of 55-45, compared with 54-46 a fortnight ago. On the primary vote, Labor is up one to 38%, the Coalition down one to 34%, One Nation is up one to 10% and the Greens are down one to 9%. Malcolm Turnbull suffers a body blow on personal ratings, down two on approval to 29% and one on disapproval to 58%, and his lead on preferred prime minister all but disappears, now at 36-34 compared with 41-33 last time. Bill Shorten is up two on approval to 34% and down three on disapproval to 53%. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1625. Full report from The Australian.
UPDATE: The poll also finds Julie Bishop clearly favoured over Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberal Party, by 40% to 27%. Peter Dutton on 11%, being most favoured by One Nation voters on 24%.
lizzie
Brandis denies saying it and the speaker backs him up. First day in the job and he’s found his feet already.
mikeH
His Liberal feet? 😆
Zoid
It was a debate. QT Greens asking about Manus.
So you statement is factually incorrect
your not you.
NewtonMark: Has anyone asked @SenPaterson why he wrote a bill that enables a hotel to lawfully refuse to supply accommodation to a single mother?
I presume Paterson would be fine with any business refusing service to any person for any reason.
Cash is alive!
Reuters: Papua New Guinea to begin forcible removal of asylum seekers from detention center reut.rs/2zRMSaN pic.twitter.com/z5HSkxOC6v
Notably Cash is getting Dorothys on Dutton’s responsibilities rather than her own.
lizzie
Exactly.
I have my doubts about no one hearing Senator Cash sitting farthest away
This is all they have. BOATS BOATS BOATS.
They’re desperately hoping Manus can just go the fuck away asap. If Manus gets so bad that BOATS is a negative to them then what the hell do they offer anyone?
Re BW’s earlier comment about November 11 and the seeming low impact of same…………can readily be put down to the demise of what might loosely be called ‘living history’.
While in the UK in 2014/15 the papers were full of nostalgia about the outbreak of the WW1 (many articles in The Times) however, with the complete passing of that entire generation and the passing of the subsequent WW2 generation, both events are turning into recorded rather than remembered history. Once, not so many years ago, 6 June was widely remembered as D-Day. The TV stations trotted out movies such as “The Longest Day” and other war movies from the era. Now, 6 June passes with little or no reference. Just a natural course of events such as all wars and catastrophes tend to be most relevant to the generation in which they occur.
While I suspect Poppy Day will become symbolic for remembrance for many wars, its particular reference to 1918 will be lost in the mists of time. Hopefully, Anzac Day will not go the same way but with the many empty seats at the 2017 Dawn Service at Anzac Cove due to the young staying away in droves, nothing lasts for ever.
Can the senate move a member no longer be heard?
*a senator no longer be heard
From Matt Golding:
https://twitter.com/GoldingCartoons/status/929894390855692289/photo/1
“Can the senate move a member no longer be heard?”
No.
craigjack36: There is a baseload power station in Nth Qld
Its called Racecourse mill and supplies 30% of #Mackay’s power with renewable baseload power
#justsaying
#senate #qldpol #auspol
Briefly (and Player 1):
[Windhover…. renunciation is a unilateral act. Providing it is made in a relevant form, it has effect by declaration. Neither reciprocation nor acknowledgement are relevant. These are merely record-keeping.
The court has specified that renunciation is all that is required to remove the impairment created by the idiocy of s44(i).
The judgments we have don’t go to the specific circumstances of K,L and S, but if they have regard to what “renunciation” consists of, they will affirm the eligibility of these 3.]
Under UK law these are the circumstances in which a UK citizen can renounce:
[You can only give up your British citizenship or status if either of the following apply:
• you already have another citizenship or nationality
• you’re going to get another citizenship or nationality after giving up your British citizenship or status
You must also be:
• aged 18 or over (unless you’re under 18 and married)
• of sound mind (unless it’s decided that it’s in your best interest)]
See: https://www.gov.uk/renounce-british-nationality
It is quite obvious that an acceptance of the application to renounce is a necessary step (a pre-conditon) to renouncing UK citizenship. You don’t lose citizenship in the UK until your application is accepted.
The HC has NOT specified “that renunciation is all that is required”. Unsurprisingly the HC has said that s.44 requires the candidate not be a dual citizen, with one exception. That exception plainly does not apply to K, L or S and they were dual citizens at the relevant time.
Toby E:
[No, Hanks QC’s argument isn’t “clever”. It’s correct. You get points for trying to parse [72] of Re Canavan as you have (everyone else banging this drum conveniently ignores it). But it just doesn’t work: you don’t read and apply case law like it’s legislation.
No High Court is going to give a foreign government’s bureaucracy the ability to effectively prevent a candidate from standing for election simply by dragging its heels in processing their application for renunciation. And no High Court’s going touch with a barge pole the question of how far in advance of the deadline for nominations you have to make the application: any definitive answer to that question would be purely arbitrary.]
I agree entirely with your last 2 sentences. That is precisely the circumstances in which the Constitutional imperative is invoked.
As to your proposition that case law is not read and applied like legislation, this is generally correct. OTOH when the HC sets out propositions under a heading titled “Summary as to the proper interpretation of s.44(i)” it would be a mistake NOT to read those propositions as being definitive of the interpretation of s.44(i).
You thank me for parsing [72]. To debate with me you need to expose the error of my parsing as I have done with Hanks opinion, as reported.
Are the Greens in their usual holier-than-thou fashion insisting that ALL MPs and Senators found to have made false stat decs are (a) referred to the AFP and (b) are forced to pay back all salary, perks and (c) are stripped of all superannuation?
Or is that a bit pesky for them?
Boris @ #302 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 10:39 am
A more generic symbol / statement covering all forms of discrimination would be better. Make it all or nothing. No form of discrimination is acceptable to me. ‘An injury to one is an injury to all.’
Good for Tamie. What a woman. ♥
Yon Dutton ☠ has a lean and hungry look. Such men are not…..
Would it be presumptuous to put Andrew Wallace (MP for Fisher) in the conservative camp?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-04/keeping-the-faith-andrew-wallace/8461122
Guytaur
yes I am!
Tremble in fear Gerry Harvey
Reuters: Amazon says Australia launch imminent ahead of spending season reut.rs/2zzm92d pic.twitter.com/aRWok6uI2g
jw
😆
All good arguments from Windhover and Toby et al re what the HC might hold re the Labor people.
Doesn’t it all come down to whether renunciation occurs at the time of submission of the papers by the particular, and whether that means at that time the person no longer retains the status of foreign citizen? Or is retention of status dependent on getting the confirmation from the relevant country?
Buggered if I know, m’Lord.
*particular politician
If you call burning bagasse renewable… but I guess there is not much else you can do with it.
Ssenator McKim on his feet attacking the government over Manus again.
“Doesn’t it all come down to whether renunciation occurs at the time of submission of the papers by the particular, and whether that means at that time the person no longer retains the status of foreign citizen? Or is retention of status dependent on getting the confirmation from the relevant country?”
It’s a matter of foreign law, different for different countries but almost certainly not the date paperwork is submitted.
The real question is whether the constitutional provision allows that ‘reasonable steps’ are sufficient and whether submission of paperwork and payment of fees is enough to amount to ‘reasonable steps’. I have my doubts, but it’s possible to make a case either way.
So you are going with the “and the High Court will so hold” approach Windhover?
Confessions @ #8 Sunday, November 12th, 2017 – 9:58 pm
It’s true.
Roger,
That was the gist of my post a page or two ago. Would a person be able to get a passport from a foreign power after the renunciation request has been received but before it’s been processed? If the answer is no, then they are obviously no longer entitled to the rights and privileges of that power.
Exactly, Wndhover. And the argument that the High Court would be against proclaiming expected processing times for renunciation by other countries, is actually an argument against their own position.
**The real question is whether the constitutional provision allows that ‘reasonable steps’ are sufficient and whether submission of paperwork and payment of fees is enough to amount to ‘reasonable steps’. I have my doubts**
I dont. they applied almost immediately once the election (a surprise one at that) was called. Brandis hammering away with fluff and bluster about when they were preselected tells me he knows they have a solid argument and he is trying to strawman the HC. Good luck on that George.
Interesting watching Cash vs Kitching in the senate today. I couldn’t pick who I despise more.
BevanShields: Not sure who is advising John Alexander, but a reporter just told him the writs were issued for a December 16 byeelection. Says he didn’t know that #aupsol
Would it be presumptuous to put Andrew Wallace (MP for Fisher) in the conservative camp?
Maybe moderate Moksha,
is good with marriage equality, rights of others, believes churches should have right of veto which is fair enough, small government and no deficit yet supports NDIS and appears to support bank inquiry.
tho, maybe I see anyone in the libs as left of abbott and andrews as moderate.
@ Rex – it’s true, but hardly seems relevant.
None of these and/or don’t know seems to be hovering around 33-38% in the UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#May_vs_Corbyn
In New Zealand it’s running at 32 average.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Preferred_Prime_Minister
Would a person be able to get a passport from a foreign power after the renunciation request has been received but before it’s been processed? If the answer is no, then they are obviously no longer entitled to the rights and privileges of that power.
that is a very good point Ante
guytaur @ #535 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 11:38 am
byeelection?
Is that one where the former member is going to lose and is just standing to say goodbye to the electorate.
The UK better get their sh!t together, otherwise the Liberals will be fielding and endorsing a candidate they believe is ineligible. 🙂
**I couldn’t pick who I despise more.**
Who would you prefer to give you a back rub? Go with that one.
Unfortunately it’s not just Harvey who will be affected by Amazon. His stores are basically franchises so that he will put pressure on the franchisees to cut costs and that will adversely affect employees. similarly for franchise operators like Good Guys, JB Hifi and others. In fact, crafty operators like Harvey himself seem to have a way of minimising the personal fallout and seeing the burden fall on others further down the chain.
It’s not just the sort of products that Harvey sells but all manner of things like clothing, small homeware items and even books. So an awful lot of retailers and their employees will feel the chill winds generated by Amazon.
It’s also been mentioned that Amazon tends to not treat employees very well. A few days ago one of the Oz opinion writers said Amazon’s arrival was great because it would help to kill off unions.
“We hope to hear back from the home office within a week, it’s been only a matter of days for others who have gone through this process,” he said.
Except, for Sharkie (3 months), Keay and Lamb (a month).
Alexander pretty much confirming he wasn’t smart enough to revoke his citizenship when he first knew he would eventually have to resign, and left it until he actually did resign.
Considering Turnbull said Sharkie, Keay and Lamb were so certainly gone it wasn’t worth bothering the HC, it will be embarrassing if Alexander’s renunciation doesn’t come back by the 20th when nominations close.
Bid D
Delay and Alexander not knowing closing date for sorting out nomination process not looking good.
It will be interesting if it ends up the LNP not having a candidate as to who gets up 🙂
********Note I think this won’t happen just being hypothetical on projection of the bad look******************
That said though with this mob maybe it will happen. Competence has not been their strong suit.
I presume Alexander will probably get special treatment in processing a renunciation due to the high profile nature of his situation.