Newspoll: 55-45 to Labor

Bill Shorten almost matches Malcolm Turnbull on preferred prime minister, as the Coalition cops its worst Newspoll result since February.

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%.

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.

860 comments on “Newspoll: 55-45 to Labor”

Comments Page 17 of 18
1 16 17 18
  1. Sloane should take her caution about the power of the expert to The AUstralian which does its level best to position itself as expert on everything.

  2. Player One

    This is what you said-

    “You are assuming there is such a definitive date. What if there is not? What if a country replies with “Thank you for your application to renounce your citizenship, which we received on 1/12/2017. Your application is due to be heard by our renunciation committee on the 30/12/2017, and assuming it is successful then your passport will be cancelled as of 1/1/2018. Your residency rights will be terminated as of 2/2/2018. Your pension will be terminated as of 3/3/2018. For all other entitlements you should consider them to be terminated on the date you receive this letter, which we have posted via surface mail with inadequate postage. Good luck with your proposed nomination to the Australian parliament, you traitor!”

    Clearly you are saying here that there can be a period where a person may maintain residence and pension following renunciation.

    May you elaborate please.

  3. I betcha Sloane would prefer a surgeon to replace her hip! Rather than say a plumber to do it!

    She doesn’t trust experts that don’t agree with her.

  4. Terri Butler is neither fake nor politically inexperienced. She is whip smart and has maintained the Labor presence in Kevin Rudd’s old electorate with great political skill and heaps of hard work. This electorate should probably be a Liberal one but for Kevin and now her (whatever faults Kevin may have he was a stellar local member).

    Yesterday she was giving a rousing speech at the campaign launch for my local state member and today she has seamlessly moved into the TV studio with completely different requirements with equal skill.

    None of her opponents in the LNP in Queensland would underestimate her and she has broad cross-factional support locally within the ALP.

  5. Butler gets in Labor’s target 3% investment in research and development.

    Cox nods vigorously

    And Jones either changes the subject or quickly moves onto the next topic .

  6. I betcha Sloane would prefer a surgeon to replace her hip! Rather than say a plumber to do it!

    Given how full of a certain bodily waste product she is, a plumber might actually be the more-appropriate professional in this instance.

  7. Butler was a lot more forceful in her manner tonight. In the past, she has sometimes been a bit of a door mat, but not this time. Ii really liked the quiet tone to her voice, you could see that it was really giving Sloan and Taylor the shits. They hated it.

  8. Player One @ #745 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 4:44 pm

    Barney in Go Dau @ #715 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 7:49 pm

    You are being simply ridiculous and unwilling as usual to concede a point.

    So you cannot refute my point then?

    Are we grumpy with the results of the postal thing being imminent?

    No. Are you?

    You have no point.

    Your imaginary example is ridiculous because the information it contains is such that it would not come from one Government department.

    Your one letter would actually be several letters each coming from the relevant department and even official in that department.

  9. Player One

    OK, you are playing silly buggers.

    Just straight-

    Do you think, in any country, there can be a period where a person may maintain residence and pension following renunciation of citizenship?

  10. Regarding s.44

    I do not understand why posters who clearly have not read the HC decision in Canavan (or if they have read it fail to anchor their opinions on any precise passage of the judgment) feel enabled to express feel good conclusions about the resolution of supposed uncertainties in the law relevant to determining the fate of K, L and S.

    They spread their ignorance with the persistence of climate deniers and rabbit on about how no one can really know what the H C might decide.

    The whole point of a HC is to give authoritative decisions that enable certainty as to how future cases will be resolved, as far as that is possible.

    Unsurprisingly the HC sat down and explained generally but with sufficient specificity as to how s.44 would apply in cases like K, S and L.

    Gans is entirely right as to the application of that decision to K, S and L.

  11. Windhover

    Because I have missed a few posts, what in your opinion is the HC likely to decide based on the Canavan and other cases?

  12. Evening all.

    It was asked earlier about the sample size for the Newspoll.
    From the paper: 1625 interviewees, ‘maximum sampling error’ plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

  13. John

    From memory Shellbell posted earlier on the HC and was inclined to think that the citizenship seven would all survive but was not expecting the HC result.

    I hope I recall correctly (apologies Shell bell if I got it wrong)

  14. I am an anonymous poster with no authority beyond the logic, if any, of my posts based on decisions of the HC to the relevant passages of which I have previously referred in this thread and earlier to explain the conclusions I have reached.

    My summary is:

    1. S.44 disqualifies any dual citizen from standing for parliament.

    2. In Canavan, following Sykes, the HC at [72] recognised 1 exception, namely where the effect of the laws of the foreign power “irremediably” prevented the candidate from renouncing foreign citizenship. The exception is not to be found in s.44 but is implied as a Constitutional imperative to prevent the legal process of foreign countries from limiting the opportunity for Aussies to stand for parliament.

    3. “Taking reasonable steps” to renounce foreign citizenship is NOT an exception to the strict operation of s.44. Rather, taking reasonable steps to renounce might prove the legal process of the foreign country does prevent effective renunciation thus invoking the Constitutional imperative.

    4. Further, where a candidate wishes to avoid disqualification whilst holding dual citizenship, having established the Constitutional imperative applies, the candidate still needs to prove an irrevocable invention to renounce, which ordinarily will be proved by having taken reasonable, but futile, steps to renounce.

    5. Since in no way could it be suggested that the UK’s laws irremediably prevented K, L or S from renunciation prior to the date of nomination, they cannot avail themselves of the only exception to disqualification for holding dual citizenship at that relevant date.

    All the above is evident from a proper reading of Canavan and permits no other plausible outcome.

  15. http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2017/HCA/45

    [12] The principal question turns upon the proper construction of s 44(i) of the Constitution.

    [13] The competing approaches to the construction of s 44(i)
    The approach to construction urged by the amicus and on behalf of MrWindsor gives s44(i) its textual meaning, subject only to the implicit qualification in s 44(i) that the foreign law conferring foreign citizenship must be consistent with the constitutional imperative underlying that provision, namely, that an Australian citizen not be prevented by foreign law from participation in representative government where it can be demonstrated that the person has taken all steps that are reasonably required by the foreign law to renounce his or her foreign citizenship. Three alternatives to this approach were proposed. Each of these alternatives involves a construction that departs substantially from the text.

    [19] The approach urged by the amicus and on behalf of Mr Windsor must be accepted. It adheres most closely to the ordinary and natural meaning of the language of s 44(i). It also accords with the views of a majority of the Justices in Sykes v Cleary, the authority of which was accepted by all parties. A consideration of the drafting history of s 44(i) does not warrant a different conclusion. Further, that approach avoids the uncertainty and instability that attend the competing approaches.

    [39] That having been said, all members of the Court in Sykes v Cleary accepted that s 44(i) does not contemplate that foreign law can be determinative of the operation of s 44(i)37. An Australian court will not apply s 44(i) to disqualify by reason of foreign citizenship where to do so would be to undermine the system of representative and responsible government established under the Constitution.

    [72] A person who, at the time that he or she nominates for election, retains the status of subject or citizen of a foreign power will be disqualified by reason of s44(i), except where the operation of the foreign law is contrary to the constitutional imperative that an Australian citizen not be irremediably prevented by foreign law from participation in representative government. Where it can be demonstrated that the person has taken all steps that are reasonably required by the foreign law to renounce his or her citizenship and within his or her power, the constitutional imperative is engaged.

    Clearly, the HC has construed the existence of exceptions to the “peremptory” disqualification created by 44(i), notably in [13], above, and repeated in similar though not identical language elsewhere in the judgment. The Court has invoked the idea of a “constitutional imperative”. K, L and S would argue this imperative applies in their circumstances.

  16. I wouldn’t necessarily attribute Griffith being Labor to the sitting member so definitively. It’s a biggish electorate geographically (due to Brisbane’s relatively small population for an East Coast Capital) and solid chunks of it have a Labor + Greens vote well over 55% at state level, other parts are contested, and there’s not actually a lot of safe Liberal seats in it.

    (Admittedly Queensland Labor is generally a bit more conservative than Federal Labor which means the State Labor vote doesn’t necessarily transfer as strongly as you’d expect)

  17. Windhover says:
    Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 12:08 am

    2. In Canavan, following Sykes, the HC at [72] recognised 1 exception, namely where the effect of the laws of the foreign power “irremediably” prevented the candidate from renouncing foreign citizenship.

    The term “irremediably” is used in some paragraphs and not in others. I think this is the clearest statement of the extent to which foreign laws will be allowed to influence the application of 44(i):

    From Canavan

    [39] …..all members of the Court in Sykes v Cleary accepted that s 44(i) does not contemplate that foreign law can be determinative of the operation of s 44(i)37. An Australian court will not apply s 44(i) to disqualify by reason of foreign citizenship where to do so would be to undermine the system of representative and responsible government established under the Constitution.

  18. Which isn’t to say that Rudd or Butler were bad members, just that you probably shouldn’t attribute the electorate being Labor solely to them (frankly that Labor held the seat after all the shit that happened with Rudd and then him returning (losing his sitting member advantage) disputes that strongly).

  19. briefly and Windhover,

    It seems come down to the what they define “irremediably ” to mean.

    If it means, for ever, then they’re stuffed;

    but

    if they determine it in the context of the current election then they should be OK.

  20. Windhover

    Your argument is strong.
    It seems to me that the HC might wasn’t evidence of reasonable steps such as-obviously applying to renounce and paying the fee, also getting acknowledgement of receipt of application. They might also expect some evidence of having tried the hurry the process along – email or phonecall etc.

  21. Barney in Go Dau says:
    Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 12:28 am
    briefly and Windhover,

    It seems come down to the what they define “irremediably ” to mean.

    We’ll see. It’s a way of describing the effects of the operation of foreign laws.

    I think the strongest assertion is in [39] from Canavan. The HC will not permit the operation of foreign laws to undermine Australian democracy.

  22. Another important element in reading para 72 is that the constitutional imperative to engaged by having taken reasonable steps not by the refusal or delay of the application by the other Country.

  23. I think it’s entirely reasonable to leave enough time for a country to complete its bureaucratic steps so long as they aren’t too onerous (and if we use the Australian Federal standard for processing applications that’s certainly well beyond the ~6 week minimum for a snap federal election). But hey, maybe the HC will be uncharacteristically generous here and explicitly ignore foreign law that isn’t clearly trying to interfere with a candidate’s ability to run.

  24. Windhover @ #816 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 10:18 pm

    The whole point of a HC is to give authoritative decisions that enable certainty as to how future cases will be resolved, as far as that is possible.

    Unsurprisingly the HC sat down and explained generally but with sufficient specificity as to how s.44 would apply in cases like K, S and L.

    If there were certainty on the outcome, then there’d be no new referrals. The members involved would simply resign because their ineligibility is a foregone conclusion.

    I’ve not seen any authoritative/non-amateur opinion that that’s the case. Even the government, in its throes of panic, desperation, and impotent rage, is only calling for them to be referred. You can bet if they were certain of disqualification they’d be demanding immediate resignation and not simply a referral.

    They spread their ignorance with the persistence of climate deniers and rabbit on about how no one can really know what the H C might decide.

    I think there’s at least a 60/40 chance that the HC will not agree with your particular interpretation of how their ruling on Canavan should apply to the new/pending referrals.

    If that’s ignorance then I’m happy to wear it. Turnbull spoke with great certainty about what the HC would “so hold”, and it did him not a whit of good.

  25. BIGD

    My gut feeling is that the HC will stay black letter so that Lamb and Keay and Sharkey will all be turfed. Otherwise there is no way of making the law crystal clear. Possibly they will agree that cases of renunciation are routine in UK so the mere submission of application is sufficient. I imagine still as a minimum they would want some evidence that the application was received – not like the Roberts sending a form to woop woop.

  26. Windhover is hanging their argument on that single word, “irremediably”; asserting that the taking of “reasonable steps” only prevents disqualification where renunciation is “irremediably” prevented. This is at best a partial reading of the judgments. If it were applied to disqualify K, L and S, it would contradict other expressions made in both Sykes and Canavan.

  27. If there is one thing that assures me I’m on the right track, it is that dtt’s gut feeling is guiding them in the opposite direction.

  28. daretotread @ #840 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 8:43 pm

    BIGD

    My gut feeling is that the HC will stay black letter so that Lamb and Keay and Sharkey will all be turfed. Otherwise there is no way of making the law crystal clear. Possibly they will agree that cases of renunciation are routine in UK so the mere submission of application is sufficient. I imagine still as a minimum they would want some evidence that the application was received – not like the Roberts sending a form to woop woop.

    How is saying that, your renunciation must be completed with confirmation of it’s receipt before the close of nominations, anything but crystal clear?

    The rest of your comment is confusing because it seems like you are asking for what has actually happened?

  29. Briefly
    One thing that makes me feel Windhover has the right of is that you as usual posted a heap of pompous stuff without any analysis whatsoever.

    For what it is worth on high court matters my “gut” has generally been right.

    I thought the HC would rule against the Malaysian deal
    That the two overseas born with no Australian parent Senators would go (OK so did 99% of people)
    That Waters would go
    That the two citizens by descent would go
    That Xenophon would not go

    My gut was very indecisive re Canavan

    However my gut felt he HC would rule theplebicite out of order so lost that one

    Anyhow 5/7 ain’t bad.

  30. Barney
    Yes possibly acknowledging receipt of the application will be sufficient, but of course legally there is not certainty that the renunciation would be accepted. Possibly precedent etc will be sufficient certainty say in the case of the UK and NZ.

    The obvious counter to this argument would be if there could EVER be a circumstance where an individual’s renunciation is not accepted. For example if Prince William took off to Peru and took out citizenship and renounced his citizenship would that be accepted. Obviously I am taking an extreme case, but that is the point that simply sending an application may not be sufficient.

  31. Windhover concludes with: “All the above is evident from a proper reading of Canavan and permits no other plausible outcome.”

    Windhover is clearly not a QC. He fails to appreciate that the HC will continue to develop the interpretation and application of s 44, in the same manner as the Common Law has been developed over the centuries.

    The HC has not previously been required to address the specific circumstances surrounding Keay and Lamb, that is that proper renunciation steps were taken before the date of nomination, but confirmation of de-citizenship not received at the date of election.

    What they say in Re Canavan applied to the specific questions posed by Canavan’s circumstances. Their Honours will distinguish the Keay and Lamb circumstances from Canavan’s acircumstances and move the law forward one way or the other.

  32. daretotread says:
    Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 1:05 am
    Briefly

    …you as usual posted a heap of pompous stuff without any analysis whatsoever.

    That material was verbatim from the Canavan judgment, for bludgers to read. No paraphrasing….not in the least pompous….overtly referenced…

  33. daretotread @ #846 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 9:13 pm

    Barney
    Yes possibly acknowledging receipt of the application will be sufficient, but of course legally there is not certainty that the renunciation would be accepted. Possibly precedent etc will be sufficient certainty say in the case of the UK and NZ.

    The obvious counter to this argument would be if there could EVER be a circumstance where an individual’s renunciation is not accepted. For example if Prince William took off to Peru and took out citizenship and renounced his citizenship would that be accepted. Obviously I am taking an extreme case, but that is the point that simply sending an application may not be sufficient.

    If someones renunciation was declined and they had been elected, the person would need to be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns to see if they were still eligible to sit in the Parliament.

  34. Barney in Go Dau says:
    Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 1:34 am
    daretotread @ #846 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 9:13 pm

    If someones renunciation was declined and they had been elected, the person would need to be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns to see if they were still eligible to sit in the Parliament.

    Sam Dastyari is a dual citizen but will not be referred. He has made “reasonable steps” to renounce.

  35. briefly @ #850 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 9:36 pm

    Barney in Go Dau says:
    Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 1:34 am
    daretotread @ #846 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 9:13 pm

    If someones renunciation was declined and they had been elected, the person would need to be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns to see if they were still eligible to sit in the Parliament.

    Sam Dastyari is a dual citizen but will not be referred. He has made “reasonable steps” to renounce.

    Yes, I was too absolute there, wasn’t I.

    Some cases obviously fit into the existing exception and they would not need referring but their may be less clear situations that the Court may need to look at.

  36. If someone’s renunciation was not accepted, then it comes back to reasonable steps. If someone has followed the correct procedure, it does not matter if it is accepted or not.

Comments Page 17 of 18
1 16 17 18

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *