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%.
Vogon Poet @ #595 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 3:54 pm
I say they’re more likely to be safe than any who have been kicked out so far, but it’s not a certainty.
They should all be referred to the High Court (simultaneously with the doubtful LNP members).
Vogon Poet @ #592 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 12:54 pm
Blue letter interpretation says we’ve lost some people so you should too. 🙂
Big D
I replied on twitter. Its a competence crisis. Politicians lying they know they are not dual citizens on nomination forms.
Of course with twitter no nuance but that is the general basis for the disqualifications so far.
Constitutional crisis -no
Political crisis – yes
Its not the constitution causing the problem its pollies not doing their checks that is the problem.
It’s not a constitutional crisis.
It’s just an episode where a lot of lazy politicians demonstrate that they have contempt for the law or are not very smart.
The HC will sort it well enough for ‘normal transmission’ to be restored.
I like how 4corners is promoting their programme
4corners: Malcolm Turnbull is at his weakest and the conservatives are circling: ab.co/2yVdszE Watch @m_brisso’s report tonight on #4Corners @ 8.30pm AEDT
BiGD, I thought the blue letter interpretation was, we don’t have a problem and the HC will so hold.
Roger Miller @ #597 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 3:56 pm
Isn’t a constitutional crisis one where you get into a kind of stalemate between two (or more) branches of government because they’re opposing each other and the constitution provides no checks/balances/other guidance about how to resolve the conflict?
To use a U.S. example, Congress has the power to appoint Mueller to investigate Trump. Trump’s executive power means he can fire Mueller. If he does so, Congress can simply reappoint Mueller (or any other replacement prosecutor). And then Trump can dismiss him again. And so on ad nauseam.
You’re stuck in an infinite loop that the constitution provides no way to get out of.
The citizenship thingy doesn’t seem to be in that realm, just yet. If Turnbull ratchets up his contempt for the High Court another few levels, then maybe.
Patterson just killed his bill stone dead.
Kieran_Gilbert: How much GST on a birthday cake? twitter.com/trudymcintosh/…
TrudyMcIntosh: James Paterson tells Sky News hotels should be able to refuse hosting a wedding reception for same sex couple but not a ‘party’ for a same sex couple
Player One @ #590 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 12:49 pm
No it’s completely relevant.
It is the absolute point where you are no longer a citizen of another country.
If your opinion favours a black letter interpretation then anything short of this, barring not being able to renounce, and your gone. That position is entirely logical and makes perfect sense.
I agree there should be more leniency but whether that has any legal basis will be up to others better than us to argue and the HC to rule.
Guytaur
What Turnbull is really saying is that he is joined at the hip with the USA. Trump just happens to be idiot in chief.
I am sure Turnbull would rather he wasnt
Steven @ #461 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 1:54 pm
I got a whiff of it from the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne and it was appalling. I have no idea how people actually remained in the area. They exposed themselves to a major health risk.
The relevant health authorities appear to have been delinquent in their duties and should be dealt with in a similar manner to what you suggest for the mine operators.
Turnbull must regret ‘so hold’.
I’d bet he just couldn’t resist rolling out the phrase ‘cos it sounds so high powered lawyering.
“Foiled again”!
Vogon Poet @ #601 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 1:05 pm
Yes, that was their first position, but things have changed and this could be seen as the dummy spit interpretation. 🙂
Vic
No mater what Turnbull wishes you cannot be joined at the hip with the USA without being joined at the hip with Trump. They are one and the same at the moment.
Thats why Labor has been wise to say they want independent foreign policy. No Australian wants us to be a servile nation.
guytaur @ #603 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 1:09 pm
That’s the great thing about nut jobs, logic and consistency never help their arguments. 🙂
Patterson, the Senator for the State of IPA, is one strange type.
Elected to the Senate at 28 we can expect to have to put up with him for a loooonng time.
Here is one example why Australia should become a republic.
In the midst of the citizenship crisis, Anning was shown on Ch 10 news pledging allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II.
Some people may find it difficult to comprehend why an MP cannot be a British citizen, yet is required to pledge allegiance to a Queen who resides in the British capital.
CTar1 @ #611 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 1:18 pm
Add to that, people generally get more conservative with age. 🙁
Shall we make predictions about Essential tomorrow?
I hereby declare my complete innocence regarding rude words about the AFP Asio and the LNP.
Only until I reload my main computer which has been overtaken by the euphoria generated by the news that the Government has a plan.
Currently on secondary computer I have two Submit buttons and I have never been much for decisions.
Ah well, toodles.
Au revoir.
Spain:
The more of this I see it is obvious that Catalonian people are outraged at the behaviour of the Spanish Govt but not necessarily a majority of them in favour of independence.
KayJay @ #523 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 3:11 pm
Yes indeed.
I have a warm memory of having met her and Malcolm Fraser at an ABC ‘Open Garden’ function years ago and having a bit of a chat with both.
Mal was actually scathing about M’arn Ferson, something I agreed with at the time and do even more so now.
Gough may have spoken of “maintaining the rage”, but on some topics, it seems to have been transferred to the Frasers.
Bigd @ 4.33
The court does not talk about “obtaining a termination of citizenship”. It talks about a particular kind of act – “to renounce”.
This is unilateral deed. Providing it’s made in a relevant format, it is a complete act. The court has never spoken of requiring a renouncing citizen to obtain consent or reciprocation. Indeed, this would mean the act of the citizen would not be “renunciation”. It would be a request. They are quite different things.
I always enjoy PB when posters take the bit between their teeth and gallop off, laughing.
Usually as a result of Coalition chaos. 😆
What about an anniversary party or an engagement party, or a hens or bucks night?
Any religous freedom has to include my freedom from your religion. My religion is fine with marriage equality. Why should it be inferior to your religion in the eyes of the law?
Boris @ #542 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 3:43 pm
A very cleverly constructed argument.
When I saw the original question posed, my reaction was WTF???
Well done.
Voice Endeavour @ #546 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 3:52 pm
Lord Downer of Baghdad will be tasked to ensure that it does.
He will bombard them with emails, faxes, phone calls, and worst of personal visits until they comply.
Elsewhere i read that Madeline King, the member for Brand, has released a letter revealing the date of her renunciation of UK citizenship as May 19 2016.
Another labor MP answers the question.
guytaur
That’s really funny. In the unlikely chance that the bill goes through, there’ll be people who will redefine their ‘wedding reception’ as a ‘wedding party’ or even a ‘let’s get together party’.
Will they kiss and make up? Stay tuned for the next episode in the soap opera that is PHON.
Raaraa
Yes I think we can laugh now. I think when the ridicule stage is reached even the right wing loons know its doomed. 🙂
Still will cross fingers until legislation passes of course.
briefly @ #618 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 1:29 pm
The application is both renunciation and request for the citizenship is only extinguished when the country acknowledges that you are not a citizen.
If the country refuses to release you as a citizen then the HC has created the idea of reasonable steps because you are unable to complete the process required, extinguishing a foreign citizenship.
If you hold your position there would be no need for reasonable steps as just submitting a renunciation to the country would be enough to ensure eligibility.
Labor believe that the HC would extend reasonable steps to cover someone who has submitted their renunciation to the country but that position accepts that the acknowledgement of the country is absolutely required to complete the process.
The guy on The Drum from Ernst and Young is worth listening to.
Whatever it is tomorrow it will be worse next week. In the past few months it has had a few strange samples that jumped to the L-NP. Last week’s sample looked like another dud and will take another week to wash out.
Player 1:
[Windhover @ #518 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 3:01 pm
Briefly (and Player 1):
You don’t lose citizenship in the UK until your application is accepted.
This is a bit irrelevant to the general point. Which is that whether or not your renunciation is “accepted” is completely beyond your control, so it is logical that merely submitting the renunciation by the required date and in the required form (unless that form is unreasonably onerous) will probably** be found to be sufficient, because no other outcome makes sense. As others have pointed out, our HC is unlikely** to accept that eligibility to nominate for the Australian parliament should be dependent on the procedures (or lack thereof) of a foreign power – especially when the nominee has done everything within their power to comply with the constitution.
** my opinion!]
I do not agree with the assumption on which your opinion is based, namely that renunciation of citizenship is somehow beyond a renouncer’s control. There is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, starting with K, L and S.
I do not know how otherwise you form your opinion. By contrast I have expressed my opinion in a way that can be proved wrong, were that to be the case or, more particularly, if you had some real reason to think me opinion wrong. Give it a try.
Barney in Go Dau @ #608 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 5:09 pm
Part of my point was that there is no “absolute point” in this situation. Is it the date your submission is made? Is it the date when the country concerned acknowledges receipt of your submission? Is it the date they adjudicate your submission? Is it the date they notify you of their decision? Is it the date the decision takes effect? What if this date is different for different “entitlements” (e.g. residency rights, passport validity, pension rights, voting rights etc etc) – which entitlement becomes the decisive one? Or it the date when any possibility of appeal expires?
My argument was that anything beyond the first date is (a) beyond the applicant’s control, (b) subject to the whims of a foreign government, and (c) different from country to country. The only date that is objectively the same for all nominees is the first date – i.e. the date of submission, provided it is in accord with the requirements for the country concerned (assuming they have some!).
The HC has shown a willingness to make rulings in this area that are less strict than a “black letter” interpretation. I am assuming they will continue to do so.
Agreed. My understanding is that the HC has never yet ruled on this scenario, or on anything like it – all the rulings to date have been based on whether or not foreign citizenship existed, and/or should have been known to exist by the nominee at the time of nomination – and not on whether the steps made to renounce any dual citizenships were acceptable (this is true even in Roberts’ case). But they are likely to do so before the end of the year, so we only have to wait a bit longer to find out!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-great-betrayal-coalition-hardliners-throw-democracy-overboard-to-resist-samesex-marriage-20171113-gzkb9o.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-12/endangered-swift-parrot-nesting-boxes-destroyed-in-logging/9142214?pfmredir=sm
But attending a gay wedding isn’t even necessarily showing that you support anything beyond the two people getting married! Are people and businesses going to be allowed to discriminate on the basis of inferred support for something they disagree with?
Windhover @ #634 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 6:02 pm
See my post #635
If there is an error (genuine rather than a delay tactic by the foreign power) in the renunciation process and the renunciation is rejected, that could pose an issue. The High Court could easily rule that either the renunciation has to take effect or there has to be evidence of unacceptable rejection for the person not to be disqualified.
Windhover @ #630 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 2:02 pm
No one is right or wrong in this because no one can prove their position is right in this forum.
The only forum that can do that is the High Court of Australia.
I can see how the HC could rule in favour of both sides, you apparently can not.
No one is in a position to hold that much certainty! 🙂
Bemused @ 1711
I agree. The EPA and others should be held accountable. Their behaviour during this event and subsequent emergencies has been nothing short of disgraceful.
The ramifications for the LV residents will be a generational issue.
I don’t hold much creedence with the CFA either wrt some of the policies and efforts as well but that is another story.
“namely that renunciation of citizenship is somehow beyond a renouncer’s control.”
If that were true, then wouldn’t Sam Dastyari be ineligible? I thought the thing with him was that Iran wont acknowledge he is not a citizen any more ??
Uhlmann has been so much better since he joined Ch9 that it’s very tempting to think there is a cultural problem in the ABC newsroom. Mind you, in the period since he left the ABC turd polishing for the government has been very difficult.
Also, Lane Calcutt (who I think is underrated), had a grab of JBish saying Labor have finally agreed to the government’s proposals on citizenship, and then corrected her, saying the government had caved into the ALP demands.
“I can see how the HC could rule in favour of both sides”
Schrodinger’s ruling. In a super position of states until observered by the High Court.
The HC has already suggested that reasonable steps are sufficient where the operation of foreign law is contrary to the constitutional imperative that an Australian citizen not be irremediably prevented by foreign law from participation in representative government. That would be the case with Dastyari.
Personally, I don’t think that Leay etc. are ‘irremediably prevented… from participation in representative government’, but who knows?
Steven @ #642 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 6:13 pm
Yes, the EPA too. But the Chief Medical officer and staff seemed to be disinterested until very late in the piece. Why? The health of thousands of people was at risk. They and the EPA were asleep at the wheel. Appalling!
Player One @ #631 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 2:06 pm
It’s the date stated in the written notification that you receive at the completion of the process.
i.e. the date the Country says you are no longer one of its citizens.
Simple, any time before that date you are.