The latest of Essential Research’s fortnightly polls, which continue to limit themselves to issue questions in the wake of the great pollster failure, focuses mostly on the Israel Folau controversy. Respondents registered high levels of recognition of the matter, with 22% saying they had been following it closely, 46% that they had “read or seen some news”, and another 17% saying they were at least “aware”.
Probing further, the poll records very strong support for what seem at first blush to be some rather illiberal propositions, including 64% agreement with the notion that people “should not be allowed to argue religious freedom to abuse others”. However, question wording would seem to be very important here, as other questions find an even split on whether Folau “has the right to voice his religious views, regardless of the hurt it could cause others” (34% agree, 36% disagree), and whether there should be “stronger laws to protect people who express their religious views in public” (38% agree, 38% disagree). Furthermore, 58% agreed that “employers should not have the right to dictate what their employees say outside work”, which would seem to encompass the Folau situation.
Respondents were also asked who would benefit and suffer from the federal government’s policies over the next three years, which, typically for a Coalition government, found large companies and corporations expected to do best (54% good, 11% bad). Other results were fairly evenly balanced, the most negative findings relating to the environment (26% good, 33% bad) and, funnily enough, “older Australians” (26% good, 38% bad). The economy came in at 33% good and 29% bad, and “Australia in general” at 36% good and 27% bad. The poll was conducted last Tuesday to Saturday from a sample of 1099.
Also of note:
• A referendum on indigenous recognition may be held before the next election, after Aboriginal Affairs Minister Ken Wyatt’s announcement on Wednesday that he would pursue a consensus option for a proposal to go before voters “during the current parliamentary term”. It is clear the government would not be willing to countenance anything that went further than recognition, contrary to the Uluru Statement from the Heart’s call for a “First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution” – a notion derided as a “third chamber of parliament” by critics, including Scott Morrison.
• A paper in the University of Western Australia Law Review keeps the Section 44 pot astir by suggesting 26 current members of federal parliament may fall foul by maintaining a “right of abode” in the United Kingdom – a status allowing “practically the same rights” as citizenship even where citizenship has been formally renounced. The status has only been available to British citizens since 1983, but is maintained by citizens of Commonwealth countries who held it before that time, which they could do through marriage or descent. This could potentially be interpreted as among “the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power”, as per the disqualifying clause in Section 44. Anyone concerned by this has until the end of the month to challenge an election result within the 40 day period that began with the return of the writs on June 21. Action beyond that point would require referral by the House of Representatives or the Senate, as appropriate.
Simon Katich says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 11:55 am
Yep, I was just talking to some of the office girls, sorry it’s true, this week and they mentioned it.
It’s in Toraja a mountain region about 10 hours north of Makassar.
Here’s a link to a report about it.
https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2017/toraja-death-ritual/
It’s a fairly common situation in Asia, newer religions have been adopted, but still many older beliefs have been maintained and sometimes even incorporated into the new religion. The article goes on to mention this.
It’s one element that makes Indonesia feel so different from Islamic Countries in the Middle East.
Quite fascinating, I find. 🙂
Boerwar
I always thought a line was crossed when everything became “drugs”.
Mavis Davis says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:56 am
Pell’s appeal is now more than a month old. It’s unfair to the prisoner and the complainant for this to drag on. If Pell’s convictions are quashed, his incarceration will have been unnecessarily extended. Conversely, if the Court of Appeal thought at the hearing that the convictions were unsafe, he would’ve been released.
What are his alternatives; a prison or a monastery? Is there much difference?
SK
Yes
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-07/pill-testing-kits-available-in-some-pharmacies/10789064
Who the hell takes ice at a rave?
It’s been over 10 years since I last had a pinger, but I have friends who still indulge from time to time, and I was under the impression that one of the points of pill testing is so people can make sure they haven’t been sold something like meth or bath salts instead of good old MDMA.
I believe that many older cultures had a day of freedom from the norms.
In decadent Western cultures all you need is pill testing and every day is a Saturnalia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia
lizzie
The the other day I was speaking to a couple of residents of Mutitjulu which is the Indigenous community at Uluru and they said that hordes of tourists were shitting all over the place, camping all over the place, driving all over the place and dropping rubbish all over the place.
Simon,
I meant to add that I haven’t heard any reference to orgies in relation to Toraja.
If they did happen it would be off putting if “sick” people were included.
frednk:
[‘What are his alternatives; a prison or a monastery? Is there much difference?’]
If prisoner Pell’s convictions are upheld and he’s refused leave to appeal to the High Court or is granted leave but loses his appeal, it’s my understanding that laicization will follow, with the result that he may find it hard to get free rations & quarters in a monastery on release from the slammer.
lizzie:
Seeing you like Simon & Garfunkel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv4t6LzfZw8
I think I have conflated. It has been a while.
Trobriand Islands.
Simon Katich says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 1:22 pm
You never know, it may have been the girls tempering their freedom of speech. 🙂
[‘Mueller has expressed his reluctance to testify and said he won’t go beyond what’s in his report.’]
Although it’s unlikely, if Mueller refuses to answer the Judiciary Committee’s questions, he could be held in contempt of Congress.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/mueller-s-testimony-to-congress-delayed-20190713-p526w1.html
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/what-happens-when-someone-held-contempt-congress-here-look-the-process/T9egd1JapAWGT78SUZ1e3O/
It’s still speculation, but I agree that suicide is the most likely explanation for MH370’s disappearance.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-13/mh370-pilot-in-control-until-the-end-french-investigators-claim/11305750
Isobel Roe
Verified account @isobelroe
22h22 hours ago
The ABC has been told operators of the Nerang aged care home have withdrawn $1600 for next month’s care from bank accounts, despite having just booted out residents. When I called the operator they said ‘no comment’ and didn’t want to know my question. #agedcare
Boerwar
Uluru. All desperate not to miss out on something on their (haha) bucket list, and no respect for anyone’s needs except their own.
‘lizzie says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 2:20 pm
@MeckeringBoy
11m11 minutes ago
Obsolete even on the drawing board?’
The argument is that the subs should have lithium batteries rather than lead batteries. The counter argument is that lithium batteries needed for subs are not yet actually working and that, if they do prove workable, then they can be fitted into the new subs.
‘lizzie says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 2:23 pm
@annabelcrabb
The PM is giving a doorstop in Brisbane – says he and Ken Wyatt are on the same page and they both agree that the “Voice to Parliament” will not be enshrined in the Constitution.’
This answers the question whether Morrison is going to lead on this. The answer is clear. No.
That leaves a legislated Voice outside the Constitution as an option. ATSIC mk 2.
And as soon as the whitefellas did not like ATSIC they got rid of it.
When I joined PB about 10 years ago saw it as a good place to get up to date and accurate info.
I must’ve been naive. This is not the case now.
Sprocket
The girl did not “just take 9 ecstasy pills.” Context is everything. She had a sensible (to her) urgent reason to shove them all into her mouth. Check out the true facts recorded by the Coroner. Her reasoning was of course very flawed.
As to pill testing, talk about shades of the wowser response to safe injecting rooms. Personally, I prefer to accept the science. In this matter, I back the views of the well known medicos who have spent their life treating and in many cases “curing”drug addiction.
You can’t “cure” dead people. Injecting rooms and pill testing at least keep them alive.
8 and a half bells and all’s well ❓
Dutton should confine himself to being as cruel as he can be to asylum seekers, no commenting on a matter outside of his portfolio:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/12/peter-dutton-rules-out-voice-to-parliament-labelling-it-a-third-chamber
Why use ‘wowser’ except if you are trying to close down debate.
No-one said you can cure dead people. Why the straw man?
The censorious tone and the use of pejorative language is combined with appeals to authority.
Left jab. Right hook.
If pill testing is good enough for raves is it good enough for secondary school where large numbers of youth are known to congregate?
Perhaps at the beach?
Perhaps in primary schools?
What is wrong with a ‘third chamber’ if it does a worthwhile job?
Boerwar
Given how people regard the first two good luck with selling the idea that we need more of them.
Nicholas says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 11:06 am
The division on the Left is paralysing. It is corrosive. It is enervating. It is demoralising.
In a preferential voting system to what extent can disappointing election results really be attributed to the fact that there are two main Left parties instead of just one? I don’t see the data to support the claim that division is the key problem.
Data?
How many more decades of political defeat will it take to persuade you that we have been losing and will go on losing?
Goodbye Palm Cockatoo?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-13/iron-range-national-park-cyclone-recovery-to-take-decades/11282936
Is the IPA a Third Chamber? Is Newscorp a fourth?
Psyclaw (AnonBlock)
Saturday, July 13th, 2019 – 2:59 pm
Comment #562
When I joined PB about 10 years ago saw it as a good place to get up to date and accurate info.
I must’ve been naive. This is not the case now.
So why do you keep coming back? It looks like it is simply to throw your weight around.
You do not raise any meaningful implications. You are indulging in an easy rhetorical trick known as whataboutery. If drug experts think there is harm reduction value in pill testing at concerts specifically, there isn’t a good argument against it. Saying that pill testing has to be conducted either everywhere or nowhere is stupid.
Steve777
Quite so. 🙂
Nicholas @ #572 Saturday, July 13th, 2019 – 3:24 pm
Exactly. It is why there are no breath tests in high schools, or on every road, every day. Or pill testers don’t go door to door asking whether the residents are MDMA dealers so that they can test their product. It’s not practical and serves no useful purpose. However, if you want to get the biggest bang for your lifesaving buck you go to where 30000 young adults are, ~90% of whom are known to consume illicit drugs and test.
***
Steve777
They are Chambers 1a and 1b with Rupert being President for Life. We peasants get to elect Chambers 1c and 2a.
Boerwar:
[‘What is wrong with a ‘third chamber’ if it does a worthwhile job?’]
Nothing! But this mob is paternalistic as regards indigenous affairs, recognition.
Incidentally, this (borrowed from a Guardian poster) reveals Wyatt’s voting record:
‘Voted very strongly against same sex marriage.
Voted very strongly against tobacco plain packaging.
Voted very strongly against a carbon price.
Voted very strongly against increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management.
Voted very strongly for government administered paid parental leave.
Voted very strongly against increasing trade unions’ powers in the workplace.
Voted moderately against implementing refugee and protection conventions.
Voted very strongly against increasing competition in bulk wheat export.
Voted very strongly for recognising local government in the Constitution.
Voted very strongly for temporary protection visas.
Voted very strongly for voluntary student union fees.
Voted very strongly for increasing or removing the debt limit.
Voted very strongly against a minerals resource rent tax .
Voted very strongly against increasing protection of Australia’s fresh water.
Voted a mixture of for and against regional processing of asylum seekers.
Voted very strongly against increasing marine conservation.
Voted very strongly for unconventional gas mining.
Voted very strongly against restricting foreign ownership.
Voted very strongly against increasing investment in renewable energy.
Voted very strongly for privatising government assets.
Voted very strongly for more scrutiny of intelligence services & police.
Voted very strongly against increasing Aboriginal land rights.
Voted very strongly against increasing funding for university education.
Voted very strongly against decreasing the private health insurance rebate.
Voted very strongly for increasing the price of subsidised medicine.
Voted very strongly against increasing the age pension.
Voted very strongly for live animal exports.
Voted very strongly against carbon farming.
Voted very strongly for decreasing availability of welfare payments.
Voted very strongly against re-approving/ re-registering agvet chemicals.
Voted very strongly for an emissions reduction fund.
Voted very strongly for increasing funding for road infrastructure.
Voted very strongly against increasing restrictions on gambling.
Voted very strongly against increasing fishing restrictions.
Voted very strongly against encouraging Australian-based industry.
Voted very strongly against increasing consumer protections.
Voted very strongly against increasing public access to government data.
Voted very strongly against an NBN (using fibre to the premises).
Voted very strongly for decreasing ABC and SBS funding.’
How does anyone know the strength of Ken Wyatt’s votes? Doesn’t he just get to vote for or against?
It seems that Stuart Robert is encased in slippery silicone. Nothing will ever stick to him while Morrison has his back.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2019/07/13/scott-morrison-prayers-and-hillsong/15629400008437
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/13/lnp-lets-property-developers-be-diamond-members-after-donations-ban
C@tmomma:
[‘How does anyone know the strength of Ken Wyatt’s votes? Doesn’t he just get to vote for or against?’]
With some difficulty, I would think. Maybe the poster based it on whether he spoke on the various matters – either in or out of the parliament?
Mavis Davis @ #581 Saturday, July 13th, 2019 – 3:48 pm
I thought that, then I thought that it would have taken a very determined researcher to go through every speech in the chamber, if indeed he gave a speech for every vote, in order to determine the strength of his vote. I kind of think that didn’t happen.
Not helpful, Nath.
‘lizzie says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 3:30 pm
Senator James McGrath@SenatorMcGrath
I am strongly opposed to any changes to our constitution that will divide Australians on the basis of race.
***
Malcolm Farr@farrm51
Sorry senator. That division happened around 1788.’
Totalled!
@Mavis Davis:
With some difficulty, I would think. Maybe the poster based it on whether he spoke on the various matters – either in or out of the parliament?
“For an MP or Senator to be marked as “voted very strongly for” a particular policy, they need to have almost always voted in a way that supports the policy (they may have voted against it once or twice, but usually only in a less important vote) and they need to have been present for almost every vote (too many absences will count against them and may even push them into the “voted against” categories since in our Parliament, not voting ultimately has the same effect as voting against something).”
https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#stance
‘Nicholas says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 3:24 pm
What are some of the implications of the above general statement.
You do not raise any meaningful implications. You are indulging in an easy rhetorical trick known as whataboutery. If drug experts think there is harm reduction value in pill testing at concerts specifically, there isn’t a good argument against it. Saying that pill testing has to be conducted either everywhere or nowhere is stupid.’
I can see why pill testing is slow to take off. The proponents use cack-handed logic.
There is absolutely no way that pill testing can be isolated from more general drug policies.
‘Whataboutery’ is a useful way of testing a policy against known circumstances.
There are some logical flow ons from pill testing at Raves.
If pill testing at a Rave why not everywhere?
If pill testing at a Rave, why not all drugs?
If pill testing at a Rave, why not all ages?
Ice for play lunch will be safe because it will have been tested for purity.
Mumble from back in the day:
https://insidestory.org.au/and-the-rest-say-no/
lizzie
They are long-lived species and will have had major hits from cyclones in the past. So the immediate answer is probably no.
In the longer term I am not sure what what will happen to the distribution of rainforest in our tropics as a result of global warming.
TBA.