Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor

Labor maintains its existing lead in the latest Essential poll, despite improving perceptions on the outlook for the economy.

With Newspoll holding its fire ahead of tonight’s budget, the one new federal poll for the week is the regular fortnightly result from Essential Research – which, The Guardian reports, has maintained its recent form in recording Labor’s lead unchanged at 53-47. Primary votes to follow with the publication of the full report later today. The poll also features Essential’s monthly leadership ratings, which have Malcolm Turnbull on 40% approval (up one) and 42% disapproval (steady), Bill Shorten on 37% approval (up two) and 41% disapproval (down two), and Turnbull leading 40-26 as preferred prime minister, little changed from 41-26 last time.

As related in The Guardian’s report, other questions relate to what respondents would like in the budget, of which the most interesting findings would seem to be an 11% increase for “assistance for the unemployed” compared with last year, along with 8% increases for age pensions, affordable housing and assistance for the needy. The most favoured categories overall are health care, age pensions, education and affordable housing; the least favoured are foreign aid, business assistance and the military. Eighteen per cent expect the budget to be good for them personally (up eight on last year) compared with 24% for bad (down six), and 39% now rate the economy good (up six since November) compared with 24% for bad.

Note also the post below this one on the looming Western Australian state by-election in Darling Range.

UPDATE: Full results from Essential Research here. Both major parties are up a point on the primary vote, the Coalition to 38% and Labor to 37%, with the Greens down one to 10% and One Nation down two to 6%.

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.

1,901 comments on “Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 30 of 39
1 … 29 30 31 … 39

  5. Toby:
    [Toby Esterhase says:
    Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 1:12 pm
    Windhover, go and read Professor Anne Twomey’s piece on Re Gallagher – then you’ll actually know what the Court did:]

    Thanks Toby for the link.

    I note Twomey alleges that there was an ambiguity in Canavan. Certainly, before the decision in Gallagher, she claimed an ambiguity existed as to when reasonable steps was required. I rejected an ambiguity existed.

    The HC decision in Gallagher does NOT acknowledge there was an ambiguity in Canavan. Rather, at [34] the plurality stated:

    “It is not necessary to address the various aspects of the constitutional imperative for which Senator Gallagher contends which find no expression in that stated in Re Canavan. The constitutional imperative there recognised does not demand that s 44(i) be read so that its effects are more generally ameliorated so as to ensure the ability of foreign citizens to nominate. Its command is much more limited. It is, in terms, “that an Australian citizen not be irremediably prevented by foreign law from participation in representative government”.

    Please note (and Prof Twomey should note it also) the plurality make it plain that “the various aspects of the constitutional imperative for which Senator Gallagher contends . . . finds NO EXPRESSION IN THAT STATED IN RE CANAVAN”.

    There was NO ambiguity. Twomey is covering her back.

  6. While I hope Shorten gives a strong and effective response to the Budget, let’s not kid ourselves that anyone much in the electorate will see/hear it/pay much attention………..As it is likely Morrison’s budget has basically disappeared over the horizon already – at least judged by the interest shown by the run of the mill media – then as cogent and sensible as Shorten may be, his response will probably be treated in the same fashion.

  8. DTT

    I have to say that I find the “loyalty” argument re citizenship but specious and offensive. Are we seriously suggesting that the MPs that have disqualified over the last 12 months were in any way conflicted as to their primary allegiance? Seriously? This argument is even further underlined when we note that some of the MPs in question (eg Waters, Alexander, Joyce) didn’t even realise they would be eligible for dual citizenship. Frankly, the loyalty argument is crock.

    But let’s just say there was a war some time in the future. Are you really suggesting that by simply renouncing their dual citizenship, that would clear up any questions about their loyalty in this theoretical conflict? And are you also therefore suggesting that single citizens would never have any questions raised about their loyalty? The whole concept is so ridiculous as to be absurd.

    My concerns about s44 are that it basically asks of people eligible for dual citizenship that they must prove that they are Australian first and only. This test of loyalty (nor anything like it) is not asked of single citizens. But then, our Constitution, along with a good many native born, doesn’t regard those eligible for dual citizenship as “real” Australians.

  9. Windhover – you said when this whole thing came up that you weren’t a lawyer.

    If you aren’t, are you some kind of constitutional expert? Because if you’re not, then telling Professor Twomey what she is/is not do is the height of audacity

  10. Hugoaugogo @ #1458 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 3:42 pm

    DTT

    I have to say that I find the “loyalty” argument re citizenship but specious and offensive. Are we seriously suggesting that the MPs that have disqualified over the last 12 months were in any way conflicted as to their primary allegiance? Seriously? This argument is even further underlined when we note that some of the MPs in question (eg Waters, Alexander, Joyce) didn’t even realise they would be eligible for dual citizenship. Frankly, the loyalty argument is crock.

    But let’s just say there was a war some time in the future. Are you really suggesting that by simply renouncing their dual citizenship, that would clear up any questions about their loyalty in this theoretical conflict? And are you also therefore suggesting that single citizens would never have any questions raised about their loyalty? The whole concept is so ridiculous as to be absurd.

    My concerns about s44 are that it basically asks of people eligible for dual citizenship that they must prove that they are Australian first and only. This test of loyalty (nor anything like it) is not asked of single citizens. But then, our Constitution, along with a good many native born, doesn’t regard those eligible for dual citizenship as “real” Australians.

    The HC have made it pretty clear that they are going to keep knocking off pollies who fail the black letter interpretation. So, it puts the onus fair and square back on the politicians to legislate changes or seek approval through a Referendum to alter the Constitution.

  12. HC re Gallagher is interesting.

    Places onus on candidates to show that timeline for renunciation is unreasonable.

    To be irremediable would appear to be that candidate would have to not be able to stand for two consecutive elections as Gallagher was ultimately renounced her citizenship making her eligible for the next election but not the one gone.
    Court said this showed was not irremediable. Court said single instance as happened with Gallagher.

    Court also noted that though a six month period applied a shorter expedited time frame was available if requested. Gallagher did not know or request this.

    Court appears to say ruling on time taking would start discriminating between efficient and extremely efficient processes.

    So unless you can show similar to Sam bad luck on process unless it drags over two elections and you can argues this is unreasonably long process.

  13. Hugoagogo:

    [The HC’s more restrictive reading of “reasonable steps” most certainly does limit the pool of potential candidates. Dual citizens (and up to 52% of the population may be eligible) are being asked to make a significant sacrifice, one that single citizens are not asked to make. We can never know how many of that 52% decide that it’s not worth the sacrifice, but we can make a safe assumption that it’s a significant number. Furthermore, parties will henceforth play safe, and pre-select fewer candidates around whom there is any uncertainly re dual citizenship. All of this further concentrates our representatives among the Anglo, multi-generation, native born – like we need more of those people in parliament!

    Seems to me that we should be encouraging more citizens to take part in the electoral process, not fewer, and the HC’s most recent reading of s44 does not facilitate this.]

    Your first point, that the HC’s recent interpretation of s.44 means that dual citizens who might otherwise have stood for federal office will be reluctant to sacrifice their duality is a nonsense.

    It is not the HC’s recent interpretation of s.44 that requires dual citizens to “sacrifice” their duality.

    Any plausible reading of s.44 does that.

    Your second point is demonstrably false. It is patent that all of the disqualified, including those who didn’t know, would have had ample time before they put their hat into the ring to make enquiries relevant to their eligibility and act upon it. All of the disqualified should have given ample thought to entering politics before doing so. The example of Tim Hammond demonstrates just some of the considerations that ought to be made before deciding to stand.

  14. So what can Parliament do short of a referendum to get around this issue?
    As I have been saying for a couple of days now, legislate for a renunciation mechanism under Australian law.

  16. bemused @ #1463 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 12:51 pm

    So what can Parliament do short of a referendum to get around this issue?
    As I have been saying for a couple of days now, legislate for a renunciation mechanism under Australian law.

    No one is suggesting that this is a viable option.

    Not the Joint Standing Committee, Constitutional experts nor the High Court in their rulings.

  17. jenauthor @ #1459 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 3:43 pm

    Windhover – you said when this whole thing came up that you weren’t a lawyer.

    If you aren’t, are you some kind of constitutional expert? Because if you’re not, then telling Professor Twomey what she is/is not do is the height of audacity

    There has been a long history of Australians offering gratuitous advice to others and PBers are just carrying on this tradition.

    There’s the famous example from World War I, with an Australian country newspaper allegedly beginning its editorial ”We have warned the Kaiser, and we warn him again!”

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/trumpeted-warning-from-a-distant-land-20140303-340k3.html

  19. Barney
    Have they considered it and ruled it out, stating reasons?
    Maybe it is one of those things that is so simple it has been overlooked?

  21. Libertarian Unionist @ #1397 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 1:39 pm

    I think glasshouses are part of their secret.

    Don’t tell P1, ’cause her head might explode, but those monocultures are heated by gas in the winter.

    Nothing the Netherlands does should come as a surprise. For air pollution, water pollution, biodiversity loss and groundwater depletion they are an environmental disaster area. But I’m sure they produce a lot of tomatoes! 🙂

  22. jenauthour:
    [Windhover – you said when this whole thing came up that you weren’t a lawyer.]

    I never said I was not a lawyer. What I said was that for relevant purposes I am an anonymous blogger. On that basis it is quite irrelevant whether I am a lawyer or not. My opinions are only worth listening to in so far as the factual basis is accepted and the logic that flows is sound.

    [If you aren’t, are you some kind of constitutional expert? Because if you’re not, then telling Professor Twomey what she is/is not do is the height of audacity]

    Whether my criticism of Twomey is the height of audacity (me being but a humble blog poster) can be easily tested.

    I claimed way back there was no ambiguity in Re Canavan.

    Twomey claims there was an ambiguity in Re Canavan. Twomey claims in the Guardian article that the ambiguity has been cleared up in Re Gallagher.

    I have pointed to the passage in Re Gallagher where 5 of the 7 HC judges explicitly state that there was no ambiguity in Re Canavan. I can assure you the other 2 judges agreed with this.

    You make up your own mind.

  26. Barney

    Its a political stunt with legs. When even Former PM John Howard agrees Newstart needs to be raised the stunt has legs

  27. ‘Nothing the Netherlands does should come as a surprise. For air pollution, water pollution, biodiversity loss and groundwater depletion they are an environmental disaster area. But I’m sure they produce a lot of tomatoes! ‘

    You obviously have never been there.

  28. bemused @ #1468 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 12:58 pm

    Barney
    Have they considered it and ruled it out, stating reasons?
    Maybe it is one of those things that is so simple it has been overlooked?

    I’m sure it would have been the first point of call for the Joint Committee, I’d imagine we’ll find out more when they release their report next week. 🙂

  29. PeeBee @ #1477 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 4:05 pm

    ‘Nothing the Netherlands does should come as a surprise. For air pollution, water pollution, biodiversity loss and groundwater depletion they are an environmental disaster area. But I’m sure they produce a lot of tomatoes! ‘

    You obviously have never been there.

    No, but I can read 🙂

  30. Terrific piece on the Intellectuals of the Dark Web. Given the earlier discussion about israel Folau it is a wake up to the politically correct who seek to expunge free speech and thought.

    But they all share three distinct qualities. First, they are willing to disagree ferociously, but talk civilly, about nearly every meaningful subject: religion, abortion, immigration, the nature of consciousness. Second, in an age in which popular feelings about the way things ought to be often override facts about the way things actually are, each is determined to resist parroting what’s politically convenient. And third, some have paid for this commitment by being purged from institutions that have become increasingly hostile to unorthodox thought — and have found receptive audiences elsewhere.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront

  31. Windhover,
    You’re not a lawyer. I am. Stick to your day job. Frankly, you’ve fallen into a classic trap for bush lawyers. What the Court said in [34] of Re Canavan was its conclusion. What matters more is the reasoning it used to get there. It wasn’t until Re Gallagher that the Court was required to reason its way to some answer on the question of what constitutes an “irremediable impediment” such that “reasonable steps” to overcome it will suffice even though someone is still a dual citizen. Just because the Court states its conclusion in such definite terms doesn’t mean that the question never needed to be asked or couldn’t have produced a different answer: the Court is there to deal with difficult questions after all. (Indeed, the orthodox position is that even when the High Court – because it’s not bound by its own decisions – unambiguously reverses one of its previous decisions it’s not doing so but instead merely (re-)stating the law as it’s always been.)
    Moreover, even though Re Gallagher now stands as the statement of the law on this point, it’s not out of bounds to criticise the legal reasoning in it.

  34. Windhover, I am one who actually listens to experts if I know they have credentials in areas I am not expert in. You said, when I asked months ago, you were not.

    Regardless of whether you were correct or not, I am more likely to take an argument seriously if I know it has foundation in credible knowledge.

    As a lay person, my interpretation was based in logic and fairness (antiquated, I know) but if you were to admit expertise, I would have taken your interpretation more seriously.

    It also then lends credence to your dismissive suggestion re: Twomey, though that said – I have seen a number of highly respected constitutional experts today who were surprised or even angry, at the rigidity of the decision and the implications of it.

    In the final analysis … the statement that ‘the law is an ass’ seems to be apropos. It ignores the wider implications and as many have discussed here, it prevents anyone from nominating late in the piece, or if unexpectedly pre-selected, makes satisfying requirements ‘dicey’.

  35. GG

    Yeah protecting human rights is so intellectual dark web.

    Folau does not get to demonise other human beings just because he says its “religious” belief.

    He gets to pay consequences for his actions.

    This is something the Catholic Church is going to have to come to terms with just like it had to with the sun not being the centre of the universe.

    Some people are gay. Religions don’t get to use hate speech to demonise them. Not when those same religions are not condemning the shellfish and other sins in the bible in the same way.

    The cherry picking is pure homophobia..

    No excuse for religions and using terms like intellectual dark web to try and excuse it makes no difference. The same rule applies if he says it on television. On the street where ever.

    You don’t get to hide behind religion to promote homophobia.

    Gay people just are and calling them sinners is exactly like calling a person who has black skin a sinner for the colour of their skin is hate speech. You are seeking to exclude and promote hate.

  36. Perhaps the vindictive cuts to the ABC’s budget are having an effect in the News Department. Currently these stories are included in the top headlines online:

    – ‘No more fat to cut’: ABC News boss takes aim at budget reduction

    – Chart of the day: Australia’s income tax is getting progressively less progressive

    – Budget ignores the housing woes of an entire generation

    There are some older budget stories in the column at the right hand side, However there’s nothing I can find about about Shorten & s44.

    It would be really funny if Guthrie and her departmental bosses said to Turnbull (wtte) “We’ve prostrated ourselves before you and made ourselves look stupid for apologising when we didn’t need to. Now you can get lost and we’ll be truly objective in anticipation of a change in government”.

    We can just hope that is what Guthrie is telling Turnbull.

  38. On the story of the autistic kid who was bashed by a bunch of five miscreants with spanners, the principal of the school said this.

    “This behaviour is totally unacceptable and does not reflect the values of our school,” the principal said in the statement.

    I’m sure she means well but sometimes regurgitating meaningless platitudes isn’t a good look. I’m hoping it’s superfluous to state that bashing an autistic kid with spanners does not reflect the values of the school.

  40. P1, anyone who visits the Netherlands, quickly sees that ground water depletion is not an environmental disaster. There is water everywhere.

    There have been some instances where draining of the last polder was a little too enthusiastic (land subsistence was an issue), but the process has been modified.

    Also some salination of ground water close to the sea caused by extraction has been a problem, but once again this is being addressed.

  41. Bemused

    Laws made by Parliament which are Constitutionally invalid get struck down on a reasonably regular basis.

    So say Parliament passes a law which says something like “..any person who is, or may think they are, or who has the vaguest suspicion they could be a dual citizen, can front up at the Electoral Commission, fill in some forms, pay a fee, swear an oath, and Australian law and courts will consider them from that time onwards to be only an Australian citizen. And by the way, amongst other things, this person can stand for Parliament and not be disqualified by S.44.”

    Do you think this law is consistent with the Constitution? Would it stand a challenge?

  42. Greensborough Growler @ #1480 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 2:14 pm

    Terrific piece on the Intellectuals of the Dark Web. Given the earlier discussion about israel Folau it is a wake up to the politically correct who seek to expunge free speech and thought.

    Just so we’re clear GG, when you complain about “political correctness” in this context you are actually complaining about “treating other people with respect”.

    That it is no longer acceptable to mistreat women, homosexuals, black people and other minority groups who historically have had little in the way of power in our society is not “political correctness”, it is a change in our social structure resulting in a previously mistreated minority now being on the way to being treated with the same respect that powerful white men have always been treated with.

    Mr Folau is suffering the social consequences of failing to treat other people with respect, or as you would put it, he’s suffering from political correctness. Nobody from the Government has steped in to apply any sanction to him.

  43. “S. 44 (i) is rubbish. It should be repealed.”

    Totally agree. If you can vote, you should be able to sit in Parliament. The oath of office should make it clear that all other loyalties are overridden by that to Australia, whether to another country for which you might have citizenship, to the Government if you were at the time of nomination a public servant, to the ‘Mining Sector’ or Coal.

  44. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to spout offensive rubbish, or any rubbish come to that, and not be called on it.

  45. Steve – true. We ask pollies to park their religions (though it is debatable with the current r-w nutters) so why not their dual citz?

  46. PeeBee @ #1490 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 4:38 pm

    P1, anyone who visits the Netherlands, quickly sees that ground water depletion is not an environmental disaster. There is water everywhere.

    You need to do a bit of research. Nutrient pollution in rivers, groundwater depletion and land subsidence are all serious issues in the Netherlands. I heard an article on this on ABC RN just today. They are planning to spend billions raising the level of various internal dykes and sea-walls, and not just because sea levels are rising – it is also because much of their land is sinking as they pump the groundwater out to use it for intensive agriculture. They are also having problems because they have over-developed the land around all their natural water courses.

    As they said on ABC RN today – the Netherlands has a long history of fighting nature, but they are finally coming to realize that in the end nature always wins.

  47. And just on the precedents with S.44 and any ambiguity, every case where the said person was a dual national at the time of nomination has been booted. No argument, no matter whether indolence, best efforts, sob stories, unfairness, has succeeded.

    The only 2 who were not booted, Xenephon and Canavan, were found NOT to be dual citizens.

    The tests from Sykes v Cleary and Sue vs Hill, namely that you had to be “right on the day” and “any foreign citizenship makes you ineligible” were confirmed as valid authority.

    As has been noted, the Constitution provides a mechanism to amend if the provision no longer reflects contemporary society. Parliament passes an Act for a referendum, and the people vote.

    It does seem a moot point however, as some parliamentarians have allegiance to foreign entities, well known ones being Michael Danby to Israel, Senator Rhiannon to the vestige of the Soviet Union, Tony Abbott to The Queen, Malcolm Turnbull to the Cayman Islands….

    So we have what we have, and I cant see it changing – certainly not by referendum.

  48. Toby:
    [Windhover,
    You’re not a lawyer. I am. Stick to your day job. ]

    You are making an assumption I would not dare make of you despite your claim- that you are a lawyer. For present purposes you are Toby, an anonymous blogger whose posts are worth the soundness upon which they are based.

    Of which please consider.

    [Frankly, you’ve fallen into a classic trap for bush lawyers. What the Court said in [34] of Re Canavan was its conclusion.]
    Toby, [34] is not part of the conclusion. That is a demonstrably false statement.

    At [33] the HC succinctly state the legal issue raised by Senator Gallagher. They write:

    “Senator Gallagher’s approach to s 44(i) is based upon a constitutional imperative which is different from or wider in its operation than that described in Re Canavan. ”

    Just so that I can be sure you are with me Toby what the HC is saying is that the argument before the HC was that the constitutional imperative applied more widely than as described by the HC in Re Canavan.

    At [34] the HC state, and I repeat:

    “It is not necessary to address the various aspects of the constitutional imperative for which Senator Gallagher contends which find no expression in that stated in Re Canavan. ”

    With me?

    The next 2 sentences of paragraph34 are also telling:

    “The constitutional imperative there recognised does not demand that s 44(i) be read so that its effects are more generally ameliorated so as to ensure the ability of foreign citizens to nominate. Its command is much more limited.”

    Please note that the fourth word “there” is a reference back to Re Canavan.

    The HC make it plain in Re Gallagher that there is nothing in Re Canavan that in any way gave rise to a suggestion of something in it that supported the submissions by Gallagher. That is why the HC said the Gallagher contentions FIND NO EXPRESSION IN THAT STATED IN RE CANAVAN.

    [It wasn’t until Re Gallagher that the Court was required to reason its way to some answer on the question of what constitutes an “irremediable impediment” such that “reasonable steps” to overcome it will suffice even though someone is still a dual citizen. Just because the Court states its conclusion in such definite terms doesn’t mean that the question never needed to be asked or couldn’t have produced a different answer: the Court is there to deal with difficult questions after all. (Indeed, the orthodox position is that even when the High Court – because it’s not bound by its own decisions – unambiguously reverses one of its previous decisions it’s not doing so but instead merely (re-)stating the law as it’s always been.)]

    You are right that the HC is not bound by its own decisions. But that was not how the case was put. Gallagher never argued that the HC should not follow Re Canavan and, if you are a lawyer, you would know such an argument would be doomed to fail given Re Canavan was a recent unanimous decision of the HC.

    You are wrong that Re Gallagher required the HC “to reason its way to some answer on the question of what constitutes an “irremediable impediment” such that “reasonable steps” to overcome it will suffice even though someone is still a dual citizen.”

    In fact the HC in Re Gallagher expressly stated it was quite unnecessary for it to resolve the legal dispute as to whether the UK Secretary was under a duty to renounce or had a discretion.

    There was no need because unsurprisingly the HC found that the UK was a foreign country where irremediable impediments did not exist.

    Finally you state:

    [Moreover, even though Re Gallagher now stands as the statement of the law on this point, it’s not out of bounds to criticise the legal reasoning in it.]

    Re Gallagher follows Re Canavan and Sykes v Cleary. It is of course not out of bounds to criticise the legal reasoning of those pre-existing decisions. It is pointless to criticise Re Gallagher which simply obediently follows them.

  50. NBN update

    For those interested in these things I have been NBNised via FFTN.

    Few hiccups sorting dates (I had no phone or internet for two days because they cut the copper before my modem was delivered) and getting the connection to stabilise has taken best part of a day but seems to be working now.

    Speed test says I am getting 11Mbps (on cheapest plan) just now compared with 4 (on a very very good day).

    Will it change MY life. Probably not.

Comments Page 30 of 39
1 … 29 30 31 … 39

Leave a Reply

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