Campaign updates: Bass, Chisholm et al.

A private poll turns up a surprisingly strong result for the Liberals in the Labor-held Tasmanian state of Bass, while a Liberal candidate stumbles in a key Melbourne marginal seat.

Latest electorate-level campaign news updates for the Poll Bludger election guide:

The Australian reports a uComms/ReachTEL poll for the Australian Forest Products Association gives the Liberals a surprise 54-46 lead in Bass, the north-eastern Tasmanian seat that has changed hands at seven of the last nine elections, most recently in favour of Labor incumbent Ross Hart in 2016. The primary votes from the poll are Liberal 42.8%, Labor 32.6% and Greens 10%, though I would guess the balance includes an undecided component of around 6% that hasn’t been distributed. The two-party result suggests a much more favourable flow of preferences to the Liberals than in 2016, when Labor received fully 89.2% of Greens preferences as well as about 55% from the other two candidates. That would have converted the primary votes in the poll to a two-party total more like 51-49. The poll was conducted on Monday night from a sample of 847.

Rachel Baxendale of The Australian reports Labor is “distributing postal vote application forms across the blue-ribbon Liberal seats of Goldstein and Higgins for the first time ever”. As for the Liberals’ assessment of the situation in Victoria, you can take your pick between reports yesterday from The Australian and the Daily Telegraph. The former spoke of the Liberals “becoming less pessimistic about a wipeout”, with optimists speaking of the loss of two to four seats. But according to the latter, “the Coalition fears its losses will be worse than it expected before the campaign began”, to the extent of being “seriously concerned about the loss of up to eight seats”.

• The Melbourne seat of Chisholm has been much in the news over the past few days, partly on account of Liberal candidate Gladys Liu’s overreach as she sought to bat off a question about her views on gender identity and same-sex marriage. Liu helped organise anti-Labor activity on popular Chinese language social media service WeChat at the 2016 election, much of it relating to the Safe Schools program, as she discussed at the time with Doug Hendrie of The Guardian. Confronted over her comments to Hendrie, Liu appeared to claim his report was “fake news”, and that she had been pointing to views that existed within the Chinese community rather than associating with them herself. However, Hendrie provided the ABC with a recording that showed Liu had been less careful on this point than she remembered. Thomas O’Brien of Sky News reported yesterday that a planned interview with Liu as part of its electorate profile had been cancelled by party headquarters, following earlier efforts to insist she not be questioned about the matter.

• Gladys Liu’s comments on Sunday were made at an Australian-first candidates’ debate conducted in Mandarin, the first language of Labor’s Taiwanese-born candidate Jennifer Yang, but only a third language of Liberal candidate Gladys Liu, who identifies her first languages as English and Cantonese. Rachel Baxendale of The Australian quoted a Labor strategist saying they expected Liu “use Ms Yang’s Taiwanese heritage against her with mainland Chinese voters”, but also indicates that Labor has a better handle on the importance of WeChat than it did in 2016. The service was also much discussed during the New South Wales state election campaign, with respect to the controversy generated by Labor leader Michael Daley’s statements of concern about the impact of Asian immigration on the employment and housing markets.

• Leaning heavily on the passive voice, a report in The Australian today says it is “understood” Labor polling shows it is unlikely to gain the regional Queensland seats of Capricornia, Flynn and Dawson, in addition to facing a “growing threat” in its own seat of Herbert. However, Labor is said to be encouraged by its polling in the Brisbane seats of Petrie, Bonner and Forde, and believes itself to be in the hunt in Brisbane and Dickson.

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.

857 comments on “Campaign updates: Bass, Chisholm et al.”

  1. Socrates,
    So you start with a negative number, subtract from it, and get a positive number?

    Well, if you put one – at 90 degrees to the other – you get a +!

  2. Cat

    That must be it! Sort of like what they did to NDIS funding, increased it… by -$2.7 billion.

    That is the new definition of a “compassionate conservative” – one who does not tell you to your face that your welfare funding is cut.

  3. Seems like, instead of producing modelling for their assertions, the Coalition are going to rely on the bald statement that ‘Treasury model everything’.

    It’s just not good enough. Especially when the Coalition constantly bray that Labor have to demonstrate the veracity of everything they say with modelling.

  4. Socrates @ #503 Wednesday, April 17th, 2019 – 4:40 pm


    That must be it! Sort of like what they did to NDIS funding, increased it… by -$2.7 billion.

    That is the new definition of a “compassionate conservative” – one who does not tell you to your face that your welfare funding is cut.

    Or a ‘Modern Liberal’. They don’t know how to add up.

    Or like Scott Morrison asserting that ‘the Coalition are addressing the Emissions deficit’. By making it go up! Which he doesn’t tell you.

  5. Labor have already lost the election in the last two days due to Shorten’s embarrassing performances.

    It’s just astounding how they can snatch defeat after they were almost a laydown misere to win.

    Oh dear.

  6. Labor’s lies on the Rudd CPRS systematically debunked….


    Why can’t the Greens support the CPRS as it stands?

    There is broad recognition that the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme is weak and badly designed. However, some still hold the view that “something is better than nothing”, that, if the bill passes, “at least we’ll have the architecture of a scheme to build on”.

    If that were the case and the CPRS were merely too weak, the Greens might have supported it as a start. But even the government acknowledged, as they negotiated with the opposition, that there comes a point when action becomes so weak that it is useless. Beyond that simple point, we Greens recognise that, when faced with a serious and complex problem, it is the choice of the right action that is vital, not simply the decision to act. Prescribing and locking in the wrong treatment to a seriously ill patient can hasten death rather than prevent it.

    The Greens oppose the CPRS as it stands not because it is too weak but because it is the wrong action – it would actually point Australia in the wrong direction. It would pay polluters to keep polluting, hiding inaction with smoke and mirrors. It would undermine global action with its weak target, a target which, once set, would be impossible to lift without paying more billions in compensation. It would demoralise and disempower the community and it would repeat the mistakes of the Murray River, over-allocating permits.

    This is why we say it is not just a failure, but it locks in failure.

    Here is some detail on each of those points:

    • Paying polluters to keep polluting – sending precisely the wrong investment signal
    o Far from driving investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and clean transport, the CPRS as it stands would unleash a wave of investment in coal. Far from making polluters pay, Mr Rudd’s plan will pay them to keep polluting.
    o A weak target and price signal will drive short-sighted investment in polluting infrastructure that will have to be closed down when appropriate targets and price signals are implemented, wasting time and money. Compensation to polluters linked to a requirement that they continue generation exacerbates this problem. A recent report by the Grattan Institute confirmed this to be the case.
    o In Western Australia, generators are considering recommissioning two old coal fired power stations to take advantage of this. In addition, experts expect to see new coal and gas fired power stations and refurbishment of old coal fired power stations that should really be closed down.
    o If we set out on the right trajectory with a realistic price signal from the beginning, we will make fewer of these mistakes and waste less time and money.
    o If, globally, we are to reduce emissions enough to constrain temperature increases to less than two degrees, then we need to make rapid emission cuts urgently. A slow start means that emissions have to be reduced much more rapidly later on, a requirement that is quickly becoming unrealistic.

    • Hiding inaction with smoke and mirrors
    o Minister Wong claims that the CPRS will transform the Australian economy, but her own figures show that Australia’s emissions, substantially from coal, will not drop at all before 2033. Almost all emissions reductions under the CPRS will be bought in from overseas – a case of smoke and mirrors, with offsets hiding the reality that Australia would be continuing with its highly polluting economy.
    o The government even refuses to accept the Greens’ proposal to ensure that all offsets from offshore are accredited to make sure they are 100% reliable. There have been increasing reports of dodgy offset schemes around the world.

    • Locking out the option of cuts deeper than 25% limits the options of later governments
    o The government repeatedly refused Greens’ requests to model the economic impact of emissions cuts beyond 25%. This is particularly bizarre given that, while the economic impact of 25% cuts is almost identical to 5%, there is evidence that steeper cuts will be cheaper, as we will learn faster and make fewer mistakes.
    o The Greens have obtained legal advice that says that if a future government chooses to lift the targets to beyond the current 5-25% range even more compensation to polluters would be payable. Read this advice here.

    • Undermining global action with a weak target
    o The key stumbling block to a global climate agreement is the refusal by developed nations to sign up to the kind of targets the science, the community and the developing world demand – in the order of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
    o The Rudd government’s 4% target (below 1990), and the unrealistically stringent conditions placed on moving to the still too weak 24% target, are part of the problem globally.

    • Demoralising the community with a weak target and undermined voluntary action
    o There is significant disquiet in the community about the impact of the CPRS on voluntary and additional action to cut emissions.
    o We need the community to be inspired, not disempowered.

    • Repeating the mistake made with the Murray by over-allocating free permits
    o Once rights are issued for something – for example for water rights – it is politically very difficult, and very expensive, for a government to change its mind.
    o The government has been at pains to point out that scheme will provide long-term certainty by setting a 5 year rolling cap, supported by longer term gateways. In reality, this means that it will politically very difficult for any government to ramp up emissions targets after they are set.
    o Just as the over-allocation of water in the Murray Darling has made a fix almost unimaginably difficult, the over-allocation of free permits in the early years would lock in a weak trajectory and make it almost impossible to strengthen the scheme without massive additional compensation to polluters or cost to taxpayers through purchasing imported permits.

    The Greens did not take the step of opposing the CPRS lightly. We did so after extensive considered analysis of the legislation and many months of attempting to negotiate amendments. However, we remain determined to negotiate with the government and we have written to the Prime Minister once again seeking to open negotiations. These substantial problems can only be fixed if the legislation is amended before it is passed.

    You can download a printable version of this explanation here.

    What do the Greens propose to do?

    The Greens are determined to deliver meaningful action to prevent climate crisis, which is why we developed our Safe Climate Bill – – which sets out what needs to be done. In the meantime, we are also working to convince the Rudd Government to improve its CPRS to a state where we could support it. So far it refuses to do so. We are continuing to make every attempt to negotiate amendments with it for the bills’ return in February.

    We have introduced into the Senate 22 amendments, alongside many consequential ones, that would have turned the government’s emissions trading legislation from a barrier to action into an environmentally effective and economically efficient scheme. These sensible amendments are based on Professor Garnaut’s economics and the globally accepted science. But the government did not support any of them, refuses to negotiate unless the Greens accept their woefully weak greenhouse reduction target range of 5-25%.

    The Greens’ amendments to the CPRS (release here and full chart here) were designed to:
    • insert environmentally effective emissions reduction targets of 25% unconditional and 40% in the context of global action, in line with the UN Bali Negotiating Range;
    • adopt Professor Garnaut’s economically credible proposals to:
    o auction all permits;
    o compensate trade exposed industries only to the value of their lost competitiveness, not for lost profits; and
    o not compensate electricity generators at all;
    • fix the problem of undermining additional and voluntary action by providing for such action to be tallied and equivalent emissions cut from the following year’s target;
    • remove market distortions such as the price cap and the ban on permit export;
    • ensure that transport is covered by the scheme; and
    • only allow the import of the most highly credible permits and restrict total imports to ensure credibility of the scheme and drive domestic economic transformation.

    The Greens understand how negotiation works – we presented these amendments as a starting point for discussion and did not expect the government to accept them all. Neither, however, did we expect the government to reject them all out of hand. Significant progress towards our position needs to be made if the CPRS is to be improved to a state where we could support it.

    How have the Greens been working with the Government?

    The Greens first attempted to discuss emissions trading plans with Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Wong as soon as the government was elected. Early meetings set the tone for what was to come – a complete refusal by the government to accept Greens input.

    Bob Brown and Christine Milne have written to Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Wong requesting negotiations, setting out proposed amendments and looking for a way forward on no fewer than ten occasions since March 2009. Responses have been less than forthcoming.

    General letters were exchanged in March, following the release of the original draft legislation and surrounding Senate inquiry processes. With no negotiations having occurred, the Greens sent proposals for amendments to the government on May 4, including a shift from the previous position of 40% emissions reductions only to a 25-40% range for negotiation.

    On May 27, the Prime Minister wrote to Bob Brown refusing to negotiate directly and passing the issue to Minister Wong, who had not personally responded. Senator Brown wrote back the next day, requesting meetings at the leadership level. No response has been received but a meeting took place between Senators Brown and Milne and Minister Wong at which the Minister refused to move on any issue, simply requesting that the Greens sign up to the government’s policy.

    On June 14, the Greens Senators wrote to Minister Wong requesting further modelling of emissions targets. No response has been received.

    Following the first defeat of the CPRS on August 13, the Greens wrote again to the Prime Minister and Minister Wong, suggesting negotiations to find a way forward. The Prime Minister again responded with a letter passing all responsibility to the Minister, who had not responded. On September 30 Senator Brown again requested a personal meeting with the Prime Minister, without response.

    On October 11, the Greens sent the government fully drafted amendments to the CPRS bill. A meeting took place to discuss these amendments in early November at which Minister Wong told the Greens Senators that no negotiations on any of the amendments could take place until the Greens signed up to the government’s 5-25% target range. The Greens rejected this precondition in a letter on November 5, requesting negotiations around all the issues in the bill.

    Following the second defeat of the legislation on December 2, Senators Brown and Milne again wrote to the Prime Minister and Minister Wong requesting negotiations to seek a way forward. Another letter was sent on December 22 following the Copenhagen conference. The Prime Minister again replied on January 7 2010 that any negotiations must occur with Minister Wong. There has been no response from Minister Wong as at January 13, but she closed 2009 telling the media that she would not negotiate with the Greens.

    With the CPRS returning to the parliament on February 2 and no prospect of the opposition supporting it, the government must either work with the Greens or acknowledge that bringing the legislation back a third time is purely a political stunt.

    What others say

    The Greens are not alone in our analysis of the CPRS. Here is a selection of comments others have made about the CPRS (direct link to this list here):

    John Daley, CEO of the Rudd-friendly Grattan Institute, speaking on ABC radio AM, April 22 2010:
    “actually the worst thing that we could do is to implement a carbon pricing scheme that played off those fears to provide a large quantity of industry assistance that is not necessary, that’s going to cost the rest of the Australian taxpayers a lot of money and which, worst of all, is probably going to slow adjustment of the economy towards lower carbon emissions.” The Grattan Institute report he was launching called the CPRS a “$20 billion waste of money… Much of the protection proposed … is unnecessary or poorly targeted… It would delay the structural adjustment required to move to a lower carbon economy.”

    Editorial of the Australian Financial Review, December 2 2009:
    “The CPRS is so riddled with concessions and handouts that it will struggle to achieve the underlying goal of transforming the fossil-fuel-dependent Australian economy into a low-carbon economy while maintaining our prosperity… Even before the latest round of handouts to the coal and coal fired power industries, the government’s handpicked expert Ross Garnaut had denounced it as the worst public policy process he’d seen. Any vestigial arguments for passing the CPRS before next week’s Copenhagen summit… disappeared weeks ago”.

    Editorial of the Australian Financial Review, April 30 2010:

    “The real criticism that should be levelled at Mr Rudd and Senator Wong is that they devised a policy that was too generous in its compensating payouts to high-emission industries such as aluminium, and to power generators and households, and was therefore likely to be ineffective in changing behaviour. No wonder the Greens would not support it.”

    Highly respected Australian climate scientist, James Risbey, New Matilda, December 3 2009:
    “The Australian Government’s argument is effectively that it is preferable to adapt to large climate change than to prevent it. Their argument is not usually stated in this form, but that is the inescapable consequence of their policy of postponing meaningful carbon reductions. On the one hand the Government calls for rapid action to prevent climate changes, while on the other hand it has crafted a policy that would guarantee that effective action is not taken.”

    Citi Investment Research and Analysis director Elaine Prior, ABC Inside Business, November 29 2009:
    “One of the things that the package has done is provided more surety for the coal-fired generators to keep generating until roughly 2020 or beyond … So one might say in that sense that it’s on the one hand created more stability in the electricity market, but perhaps reduced the urgency for people to look at change.”

    Guy Pearse, research fellow at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, The Age, May 2 2010:
    “The carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) is in cryogenic freeze where it belongs… Rudd proposed an ETS that guaranteed more harm than good. It promised to cap greenhouse pollution and transform Australia into a low carbon economy. Yet, by allowing unlimited access to cheap international carbon credits, it failed to cap domestic emissions and avoided economic transformation. It promised to make polluters pay, but asked the worst polluters to pay for less than one in every five tonnes of CO2 they emit. It also paved the way for farmers to sell cheap soil carbon credits into a market flooded with international credits. All in all, a recipe to retard the viability of renewables and avoid emissions cuts at smokestacks and tailpipes for another decade.”

    Brian Toohey, Australian Financial Review, November 28 2009:
    “Even when he [Rudd] announced billions of extra dollars to the biggest polluters on Tuesday, he lacked the policy nous to make this conditional on cuts to emissions. Instead, he subsidised them to keep polluting as usual.”

    Richard Farmer, Crikey, November 25 2009:
    “Bob Brown’s… party is the only one to emerge from the debate on the emissions trading scheme with reputation intact.”

    Environment groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and hundreds of local climate action groups have condemned the CPRS as too flawed to be allowed to pass.

    In addition to this, global leaders from NASA’s James Hansen to Lord Nicholas Stern and Kofi Annan have said that a weak deal at Copenhagen would be a worse outcome than no deal at all. It would take years to unravel and replace. The Rudd Government’s CPRS is such a deal.

    Fran Kelly told ABC Insiders program on Sunday November 15: “There’s lots of positive changes within the Greens’ amendments that could make this bill better.”–-your-questions-answered#cantsupportCPRS

  7. “Labor have already lost the election in the last two days due to Shorten’s embarrassing performances.”

    Ahhh…more rexanathisms about then?? 🙂

  8. “So we are facing bushfire risks in Adelaide in mid-April?”

    there were bushfires near Ballarat yesterday – a few decades ago, a bushfire near ballarat at any time of the year would be a freak incident (it is/was cold and wet place); 29oC in the central highlands of Vic, and about 17oC overnight with a warm easterly (not even northerly).

    older farmer I know reckons it is worse than the 1982/83 drought and much worse than any year before than or any year of the millenial drought. and this was not an el nino year (but one is coming).

    nothing to see here.

    Unless we get biblical rainfall within weeks (unlikley it would seem), many farmers would be best advised not to bother sowing a crop this year. Labor should really confuse the LNP by announcing a means-tested guaranteed farm income or no-interest farm income loan scheme for drought effected areas and/or employment creation projects for farmers in these areas. they could also look at paying farmers signing on to do whole farm planning for “environmental and land maintenance services”.

  9. Socrates

    Before 2013 The Mad Monk and HoJo used the same ‘miracle accounting’ that is part of Hockeynomics. Promises of big tax cuts,increased spending and yet a surplus in a jiffy. The CPG by way of another ‘miracle’ never pilloried them for their -lower income+higher spending = bigger ‘profits’ claims.

  10. Vote Compass – sample size for this report is 119,516 respondents

    Crucially, the environment is nominated as the top concern among undecided voters — 30 per cent of them say it is the most important issue, as opposed to 19 per cent who nominate the economy.
    The difference in what matters most to voters of different stripes is stark:

    For Labor voters, the environment was the top issue (40 per cent), followed by the economy and health care (each 11 per cent).

    For Coalition voters, the economy was the top issue (44 per cent), followed by the environment and superannuation (each 10 per cent).

    Among Greens voters, not surprisingly, the environment was overwhelmingly the major issue (63 per cent).

    And One Nation voters were most concerned about immigration and refugees (32 per cent), followed by the economy (16 per cent).

    ABC election analyst Antony Green said it was “surprising” that the issue of the environment was showing up as more of a concern than health and education among Labor voters, but that the party’s focus on the latter issues might be designed to attract uncommitted voters, such as older voters and younger voters with children.
    Age is a big factor in what voters care about, too, with 39 per cent of respondents aged under 35 nominating the environment as their greatest concern.

    Immigration and refugees came in as the third-biggest issue for young people.

    The environment and the economy were of roughly equal concern to those aged 34 and up, with the middle cohort of those aged 35 to 54 more concerned about unemployment than over 55s, who nominated superannuation as their third-biggest issue.

    At least 30 per cent of voters regarded the environment as the most important issue regardless of their education level, from high school through to Bachelor degree level.
    Importance of environment or economy splits down State and Territory lines

  11. “The facts are well recorded”

    Those facts don’t support your notion.

    Why would I trust your recollection from 2013? There’s no basis

  12. On top of the $40 billion in cuts tomorrow the Australia Institute will release modelling showing $77 billion of the never never tax cuts will go to earners over $180000.

    Cuts to health, NDIS, etc etc etc to pay for tax cuts to high earners.


    This election will be a three week campaign starting after Anzac Day.

    I still think posters here ( myself included ) are too close to the action to even imagine what will or will not sink in to the punters at this point.


  13. “Labor have already lost the election in the last two days due to Shorten’s embarrassing performances.”

    Ahhh…more rexanathisms about then??

    “Rexanathism” isn’t in the lexicon. Your neologisms are a sign that you are in denial. When Labor lose the election their collective denial will change to anger!

  14. “Firefox
    I lived through it; it is why I no longer voter green 1 in the senate; a rehash will not change that.”

    So did I. That’s why I voted Greens in 2010 (and ever since) after voting for Rudd in 07.

  15. Cat, Poroti

    At some point people have to call out ScumMo and Frydenberg to their faces that their budget delivery was full of lies.

    As for this Cat:
    “Or a ‘Modern Liberal’. They don’t know how to add up.”

    They don’t want to know. It is not simple innumeracy like Barnaby getting his millions and billions mixed up. Getting “add”and “subtract” mixed up is a whole new order of falsehood, that moves from incompetence to dishonesty.

    Have a good afternoon all. I better check on a fire, in these non-climate threatened times.

  16. ‘…but the Greens senator Jordon Steele-John wants a commitment they will be replaced:’

    Well, all the Greens have to do is to stop attracting 9% of the vote and to start attracting 50% of the vote. The JS-J can want and demand and announce and push for as much as he wants. He might actually get it.

    Until then he might just have to live with the fact that the Greens are totally unattractive to 90% of all Australian voters.

    And if the Greens do not form government after the election then they have no mandate to call for anything at all.

  17. Cat

    Labor people do. They are the ones that keep referring to 2013 when it’s pointed out the reality that Labor passed Climate Legislation in 2015

  18. Nostradamus says:
    Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 4:56 pm
    “Labor have already lost the election in the last two days due to Shorten’s embarrassing performances.”


    People have woken up to the pro coalition media

    Its over for the libs/nats , nothing can get the libs/nats to the 45.6% they need for majority

  19. Greens Adam Bandt:

    People sometimes say the Greens should stop criticising Labor, and that it’s important we put our differences aside to beat the conservatives.

    So let’s be clear: I’m working hard to turf this current mob out and I will not support a Coalition government if I’m in balance of power. They are the opposite of almost everything I stand for.

    He should have stopped there while he was ahead. Pity he didn’t.

  20. “Well, all the Greens have to do is to stop attracting 9% of the vote and to start attracting 50% of the vote.”

    If Labor actually got 50% of the vote then they wouldn’t need Greens preferences to get them over the line in the TPP count. But they don’t, do they.

  21. Scott @ #531 Wednesday, April 17th, 2019 – 5:04 pm

    Nostradamus says:
    Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 4:56 pm
    “Labor have already lost the election in the last two days due to Shorten’s embarrassing performances.”


    People have woken up to the pro coalition media

    Its over for the libs/nats , nothing can get the libs/nats to the 45.6% they need for majority

    Wait, if the lib/nats need 45.6% for a majority, why doesn’t Labor have a similar hurdle to clear? Oh right, Greens preferences. And Labor plus Greens are well over 45.6%.

  22. Labor people do. They are the ones that keep referring to 2013 when it’s pointed out the reality that Labor passed Climate Legislation in 2015

    Yes, indeed.

    Keep up the good fight Guytaur. (Apologies in advance for coming out in your support).

  23. “He should have stopped there while he was ahead. Pity he didn’t.”

    Maybe you’d had preferred if Bandt had withdrawn his support for the Gillard gov and brought it down, which he could easily have done. But he didn’t, did he. Nope.

  24. Okay, I’ve caught Scott Morrison in a lie about the Cuts that will be necessary to pay for his massive tax cuts and flattening of the tax scales.

    I just listened closely to his defense from Tasmania today about this subject and it appears to me that, by stating that PEFO and the Budget back him up, that that means he is only referring to the Forward Estimates, which only cover the next 4 years, NOT the next 10 years, and beyond.

    So Scott Morrison has absolutely NOT given ANY commitment to not make cuts in the areas of government services, except over the Forward Estimates.

  25. a r @ #533 Wednesday, April 17th, 2019 – 5:06 pm

    Greens Adam Bandt:

    People sometimes say the Greens should stop criticising Labor, and that it’s important we put our differences aside to beat the conservatives.

    So let’s be clear: I’m working hard to turf this current mob out and I will not support a Coalition government if I’m in balance of power. They are the opposite of almost everything I stand for.

    He should have stopped there while he was ahead. Pity he didn’t.

    It’s like the ubiquitous but that changes the whole conversation to mean the opposite of the first part of the statement. Bandt is a disingenous tool!

  26. Labor won’t get a majority in the senate, so the question is clear.

    Who will you deal with – the RW parties or the Greens/progressives …?

  27. “My impression is that is a sizeable group of lifelong Labor voters – current and retired senior level bureaucrats, academics, school principals and senior teachers, etc. – who will be badly hit by these policies. I suspect there are quite a few posters and lurkers on PB who fall into that category.”

    meher baba
    That would include my brother in law and wife who delight in telling us they each have $mills in super and are furious that they will lose future fran king credits. They are now going to vote Lib to save them. I’m having a hard time holding my tongue.
    Luckily they leave next week for the 1st of 3 cruises this year so I say thank god there’ll be no phone calls thru the election weeks

  28. The Greens partisans love their ancient history. It’s all they’ve got, I guess. Reflecting back to a time before their vote stalled. 🙂

  29. Does it matter how many lies the liar from the Shire tells?

    The media won’t hound him or ask follow up questions or make it the issue of the day.

  30. Firefox @ #536 Wednesday, April 17th, 2019 – 5:09 pm

    Maybe you’d had preferred if Bandt had withdrawn his support for the Gillard gov and brought it down, which he could easily have done. But he didn’t, did he. Nope.

    I’m unsure what that would have to do with anything. Certainly nobody gets credit in 2019 for things they did or didn’t do back in 2013 (or earlier). What has Bandt done for me lately?

  31. “Labor won’t get a majority in the senate, so the question is clear.

    Who will you deal with – the RW parties or the Greens/progressives …?”

    So true. If Labor don’t want to act responsibly and be progressive, maybe they can go an try and negotiate with Pauline instead. See how that goes down with the Labor Left faction. I’m sure they’ll just love working with Pauline, Cory, etc…

  32. Cat

    The Labor partisans love their ancient history. It’s all they have got. Denying their internal division cost this country a decade of good climate policy.

    There I reframed your partisan post from a different viewpoint.

Leave a Reply

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