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.
Lol.
Van Badham
@vanbadham
Here’s an idea; let’s increase the Medicare levy for the highest income earners and fund a completely public, job-creating universal healthcare system and dispense with private healthcare entirely. The rich can afford it – they just got a tax cut.
There is a report in ‘The Australian’ that Mossad is trying to capture the Iranian tanker captured by the UK near Gib.
Netanyahu is absolutely desperate for a Middle East War.
‘lizzie says:
Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 3:08 pm
Stuart Robert’s move to appeal an AAT decision’
Not sure what went wrong there. The Coalition appointed beaucoup third rate Liberal and Nationals has beens to the AAT.
Boerwar
Young Benjamin has a few legal problems in dire need of a distraction .
In today’s world I don’t there is a politician that will be less missed than Benjamin when he departs politics.
What a surprise, doing the ‘politically smart” thing to do did not change how The Australian reports on anything Labor.
.
.
Albo launches defence of tax cuts cave-in
Anthony Albanese has defended capitulating on tax cuts, and taken aim at the Greens over Newstart.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/albo-defends-tax-cuts-cavein-takes-aim-at-greens/news-story/ad1d2a123d4a09fd29eef75bcce15bcb
Jo B-P’s “feed the chooks” imagery lives again.
Bloody hell! What is this doing being published in The Australian !? 🙂 Note the year is after the GFC so they might be even worse off than then. ( Use Incognito trick)
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/1m-each-would-be-nice-if-only-it-worked-that-way/news-story/6e1bf7d91de0021920891f283e10bbf8
http://www.teamlaw.net.au/frydenberg-case-2019—legal-opinion.html
It’s long with many links.
Lizzie
Summary from what twitter is saying via The Project. It’s not religion it’s nationality. Hello Minority Government
poroti @ #1801 Tuesday, July 16th, 2019 – 5:29 pm
Lib lite has a renewed purpose. Lower taxes and reining in social services funding.
Maybe Qld Labor does have a spine 🙂
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-16/adani-facing-prosecution-queensland-government-carmichael-mine/11314970
poroti @ #1804 Tuesday, July 16th, 2019 – 5:29 pm
And you were expecting hearts and flowers?
Cat
Labor was. Otherwise they would not have voted for tax cuts.
Such a waste of political capital
guytaur @ #1808 Tuesday, July 16th, 2019 – 6:01 pm
Not sure if you’re serious, guytaur ?
Rex
Nah. Fines after the fact don’t count much. Except maybe for unviable status.
We are talking about a Labor party refusing to advocate for a $75 Newstart rise. Spine. Nowhere in sight.
It’s right for the dangerous cladding to be removed, but it’s another case of former Lib-Lab Govts failing the community on laws re building standards.
‘poroti says:
Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 5:23 pm
Boerwar
Young Benjamin has a few legal problems in dire need of a distraction .’
Oh, look over there, war with Iran!
guytaur @ #1812 Tuesday, July 16th, 2019 – 6:18 pm
Adani and the Qld CFMMEU are most remorseful, I’m sure…
Boerwar
Yep, a sure fire attention grabber that would keep a squirrel grip on ‘attention’ for a veeeeery long time.
I made the mistake of ignoring Penny Wong’s advice, that “no Australian lawyer or retired judge would be able to comprehensively understand Hungarian citizenship law.” – and proceeded to wade into the Josh Frydenberg complaint.
The multiple attempts over the years by the Hungarians to provide restitution for perceived wrongs have only led to a dog’s breakfast of clarity, with double negatives abounding. Poor Josh has no hope of proving non-dual citizenship IMHO.
At least Stalin was clear in his Citizenship policy for people of Russian descent living outside the boundaries of the USSR. People had a choice.
1. You could return and keep your Citizenship. ( He didn’t say that the free ticket to the Gulags was included)
2. You could remain outside the USSR, and your Citizenship was permanently revoked, making you stateless.
‘sprocket_ says:
Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 6:35 pm
I made the mistake of ignoring Penny Wong’s advice, that “no Australian lawyer or retired judge would be able to comprehensively understand Hungarian citizenship law.” – and proceeded to wade into the Josh Frydenberg complaint.
The multiple attempts over the years by the Hungarians to provide restitution for perceived wrongs have only led to a dog’s breakfast of clarity, with double negatives abounding. Poor Josh has no hope of proving non-dual citizenship IMHO.’
Then he should stop cocking a snoot at the Australian Constitution and resign.
These four Congresswomen are the classiest of class acts. They embody the very best of their country.
I have found the discussion about Trump and racism on The Drum tonight very illuminating.
No fan of Frydenberg but I don’t think he’s secretly working for the Hungarians.
‘Steve777 says:
Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 6:51 pm
No fan of Frydenberg but I don’t think he’s secretly working for the Hungarians.’
That is not the issue. Parliament should reflect the Constitution. Not deliberately undermine it.
‘Nicholas says:
Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 6:43 pm
These four Congresswomen are the classiest of class acts. They embody the very best of their country.’
Really? Your MMTs are showing.
Apart from getting themselves elected, and apart from advocating some of your extremely dubious policy preferences, none of them seem to have achieved anything of substance.
They’ve achieved more good for the world in the past six months than you’ve achieved in the past sixty years.
In addition, they understand how their country’s monetary system works, whereas you remain pitiably ignorant of how yours works.
The staus of “Australian” citizen has changed over time, not by amending the Australian Constitution, but by ordinary legislation passed in the Australian, UK and other nations’ parliaments: no referendums required or run.
Yet the Australian Constitution remains virtually immutable (due to the black-letter interpretation of it by the High Court and the practical impossibility of amending it via referendum), despite the very substantial changes made to the laws of other countries (that affect the application of the Constitution) since that Constitution was written.
Something is very wrong somewhere. The High Court refuses to admit it made a mistake in its literalist interpretation of the Constitution (believe it or not this HAS been done in other areas of the law), and other countries are effectively deciding who gets to nominate for, be elected to, and remain as members of our legislature.
It’s looking now like dozens of MPs and Senators have been or could be subject to legal challenge (on more and more fanciful grounds) due to a law – our Constitution – written over a 120 years ago, in a different world order, subject to to an almost alien world view, compared to today.
Something has got to be done to address this farcical situation we have gotten ourselves into through stupidity, legalistic interpretations of old laws, political manoeuvre, the self-absorbed vanity of our “best legal minds” and a refusal to accept that the world is a far different place to what it was in 1901.
Oh come on Nicholas, be fair. Borewar has sat himself in front of a keyboard pronouncing his expertise on just about every subject for at least 12 hours a day, for god knows how many years.
How can you deride such an achievement?
bw
I noticed how you worked your distain for pill testing into a comment RE: NDIS supported sexual therapy services earlier today. Considered it to be a rather back-handed manner at stirring the pot.
‘Nicholas says:
Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 7:07 pm
none of them seem to have achieved anything of substance.
They’ve achieved more good for the world in the past six months than you’ve achieved in the past sixty years.’
Well, I don’t claim to have achieved anything so your snark is totally wasted.
I know the Greens think that 27 years of advocacy is an output rather than an input, but really! Remind me. What have those four people achieved of substance, apart from getting themselves elected and apart from advocating some weird policies.
‘mikehilliard says:
Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 7:17 pm
bw
I noticed how you worked your distain for pill testing into a comment RE: NDIS supported sexual therapy services earlier today. Considered it to be a rather back-handed manner at stirring the pot.’
Not at all. My fundamental point – that pill testing policy considerations cannot be isolated from a general national drugs policy – was simply ignored.
Not one of pill testings’ fervent advocates mentioned that ecstacy reduces cognitive performance, increases depression and decreases memory performance.
Not one mentioned ecstacy as a gateway drug.
Not one was prepared to tackle age limits to accessing drugs by way of pill testing.
Not one was prepared to tackle drug type limits.
There was also some fairly nasty ad hominem attacks.
So, if I see a link to pill testing in other contexts I will subtly remind the other posters that pill testing at rave parties is not a policy island.
adrian
The Bludger hyena.
BB
‘Something is very wrong somewhere.’
Exactemundo. The only workable solution that I can see is a change to the Constitution.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/07/12/the-tribes-of-israel/comment-page-37/#comment-3220824
Section 44i does give foreign powers` laws say over who can stand for and sit in the Commonwealth Parliament, however it has always done that. That is the inevitable effect of its design as the Commonwealth Parliament has no power over foreign powers` laws nationality or otherwise. That it is impractical, unfair and poorly though through does not come into it. The Australia Acts 1986, which conclusively made the UK and any realms still connected to it, were made with section 44i in force and the implications not being fully taken in is not section 441`s fault. While I support reform of section 44i, as an Australian voter, I resent and oppose any suggestion that the Constitution be changed without me and my fellow Australian voters being asked for our permission as per the constitutional amendment procedure in section 128.
A referendum to change section 44i may need push polling type question wording to pass but it is achievable.
Mr Colvin has a glib line in the defence of press freedom, but is more than a match for Leigh Sales.
“Exactemundo. The only workable solution that I can see is a change to the Constitution.”
Agree. A small technical tidy-up. If you can vote for the Parliament you can run for it. We shouldn’t have constitutional constraints disbarring Australian citizens from even standing for Parliament. There might be side issues, best left to Parliament, like imprisoned felons, but that should be the principle, in my opinion.
Bushfire Bill says:
Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 7:13 pm
______________________
What are you saying old feller? Too verbose, in future please try and say it in 1-2 sentences. Thanks
Is being an MP an ‘office of profit under the crown’? MP’s receive a salary from the public purse. Maybe they all become ineligible to sit in the Federal Parliament from the moment they are declared elected. Or maybe I’ve left out a couple of steps in my reasoning.
‘Steve777 says:
Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 8:01 pm
Is being an MP an ‘office of profit under the crown’? MP’s receive a salary from the public purse. Maybe they all become ineligible to sit in the Federal Parliament from the moment they are declared elected. Or maybe I’ve left out a couple of steps in my reasoning.’
Trump does that all the time and lo!
The Australian Constitution has held us in very good stead. Granted, there have been a few moot decisions – eg, s.51. xxix (Franklin Dam), and the implied common law right to political discourse. But, overall our paramount Act serves to protect us. There is of course provision to amend the Constitution, but s.44 (i) can’t be held to be anachronistic due to the legislative imperatives of other countries, which ebb and flow. There’s very little prospect that a section of the Constitution which makes life more easy for parliamentarians will pass the very high hurdle of being accepted by a majority of people in a majority of states, even if it enjoys bipartisan support.
if you are on twitter you are welcome to ‘tl:dr’, it is a deliberate short form medium, if you are here and can’t read more than 2 sentences, perhaps you should go back to colouring book.
I tend to agree. With a couple of shining exceptions, we’ve have a pretty mediocre HC for most of Federation.
But the real failure here is the Parliament. For more than 100 years they have just failed to uphold the constitution, and it isn’t acceptable. Getup should be funding a challenge for every doubtful ‘elected’ politician, because we know the HoR isn’t going to give to figs about the constitution. This get your rocks off for god clown running the show is the most corrupt most evil PM we’ve ever had.
Flash in the pan LvT: GAGF.
I never suggested the Constitution be amended without referendum. Can’t be done. End of story.
But it IS interesting that legislation of both our parliament and that if others CAN work to expand the Constitution’s ambit *without* any referendum required.
The definition of “owing allegience” to a foreign power has changed over time. Others here have given various examples. Why not change it again to force the High Court to acknowledge, yet again, that circumstances of citizenship have changed?
Such a change may not fix all problems, but might help clarify some of the more obvious ones.
Gone and got effed yet Lars?
Mavis
And if the parties put it up for a referendum, not only will it lose but it will be a chance for every Australian pissed off by bureaucratic forms to vent their spleen at the hapless idiots who put it up so they can avoid a little paperwork.
Dio
I have a bit of a gut feeling that Australians will never pass another Constitutional referendum.
Adani wants scientists’ names, dammit.
The AFP wants journalists’ fingerprints, dammit.
The ADF wants no names, no pack drill, dammit.