Essential Research: 61-39

The latest weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s two-party lead steady on 61-39. As promised, there is also voluminous material on attitudes to the economy and stimulus package:

• 62 per cent are “concerned” about job security over the coming year, although 60 per cent are “confident” Australia can withstand the crisis.

• The opposition’s approve-disapprove split on handling of the crisis has widened from 31-35 to 35-44, while the government’s is little changed.

• Labor is more trusted to handle the crisis than the Coalition by 55-25.

• A somewhat unwieldy question about which leader’s approach to stimulus is preferable has Rudd leading Turnbull 51-33.

• Opinion is also gauged on five individual aspects of the package, with free ceiling insulation rated significantly lower than the rest.

• Perhaps most importantly, Peter Costello outscores Malcolm Turnbull in a head-to-head preferred Liberal leader contest 37-26.

What’s more:

• Last weekend’s Sunday Telegraph reported that Malcolm Turnbull is supporting preselection moves against former NSW Opposition Leader Peter Debnam in the blue-ribbon Vaucluse, which is wholly contained within Turnbull’s federal seat of Wentworth. Those named as possible successors are “restaurateur Peter Doyle, barrister Mark Speakman, UNSW Deputy Chancellor Gabrielle Upton, barrister Arthur Moses and former Optus spokesman Paul Fletcher”. Debnam quit shadow cabinet last May in protest against his party’s support for the government’s attempt at electricity privatisation, and was left out in December’s reshuffle despite reportedly angling for the Shadow Treasurer position. Also rated as a possible starter is Joe Hockey, who might have other ideas now he’s Shadow Treasurer. Alex Mitchell writes in Crikey that Hockey might also be keeping an eye on Jillian Skinner’s seat of North Shore, and muses that Tony Abbott might also consider the state premiership a more achievable objective than a return to government federally.

• Former Howard government minister Richard Alston has nominated for a Liberal federal electoral conference position, which is reportedly a gambit in the keenly fought contest to replace retiring Petro Georgiou in the blue-ribbon Melbourne seat of Kooyong. Described by The Age as a “patron” of long-standing hopeful Josh Frydenberg, Alston will attempt to gain the position at the expense of incumbent Paula Davey, who is associated with faction of Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu – which would prefer that the seat go to Institute of Public Affairs director John Roskam.

• Yesterday’s Sunday Times reported that long-serving Fremantle mayor Peter Tagliaferri has been sounded out by Labor as a possible successor to Jim McGinty as state member for Fremantle. The report raised the prospect of McGinty going sooner rather than later, thereby initiating what could prove a very interesting by-election in the Poll Bludger’s home electorate. While Fremantle has been in Labor hands since 1924, McGinty received an early shock on election night when it appeared Greens candidate Adele Carles might overtake the Liberals and possibly win the seat on their preferences. Carles was ultimately excluded at the second last count with 28.6 per cent of the vote to the Liberal candidate’s 32.1 per cent.

• Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett rates himself “extremely pleased” that Winnaleah-based school principal Brian Wightman will seek Labor preselection for Bass at the March 2010 state election. Labor narrowly failed to win a third seat in Bass at the 2006 election, being pipped at the post by the Greens for a result of two Labor, two Liberal and one Greens. The likelihood of a swing against Labor next time means Labor is all but certain to again win two seats: one seems certain to stay with former federal MP Michelle O’Byrne, while the other is being vacated by retiring member Jim Cox. Also in the field will be CFMEU forests division secretary Scott McLean, reckoned by The Mercury to be a “star candidate” despite having been “condemned by many diehard members of the Labor Party in 2004 when he backed Liberal Prime Minister John Howard over Labor’s then-federal opposition leader Mark Latham”.

• The Hobart Mercury talks of upper house disquiet over Tasmanian government legislation for fixed terms, a draft of which is “currently out for consultation”. The government wants early elections for the House of Assembly to be allowed if the Legislative Council does so much as block a bill the Assembly has deemed to be “significant”. This sounds very much like South Australia’s “bill of special importance” exception, which I gather has never been invoked since it was introduced in 1985. Independent Council President Sue Smith says there is concern that “the provision could be used as a threat to pass controversial legislation or as an excuse to go to an early election”. Another exception, according to The Mercury, is that “the Lower House would also go to an election if the Upper House blocks supply of funds for a budget”. This seems to suggest that 1975-style supply obstruction would produce an instant election, though I suspect it’s not quite as simple as that. Nonetheless, Greens leader Nick McKim has “foreshadowed an amendment by which the Upper House would also have to go to the polls if it blocked budget supply”. This would be a significant development for a chamber that currently never dissolves, as its members rotate annually through a six-year cycle. Less contentiously, the legislation also allows for an early election if the lower house passes a no confidence motion.

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.

1,646 comments on “Essential Research: 61-39”

Comments Page 29 of 33
1 … 28 29 30 … 33

  2. No 1362

    The model is silly and gives politicians way to much power by essentially asking people for a vote of no confidence in our constitution.

    Before any referendum is to occur, the republicans must enunciate exactly the model they wish to supersede the current constitutional monarchy. The fact they are still floundering as to which model to pursue proves that they are a rabble.

  4. Adam

    I agree, but GB has been a republic in the past and may be again in the future, surely it is untenable that we would remain a monarchy if GB was a republic?

  5. All this debate about 1999 is futile. The lesson from 1999 is that the people want a directly elected head of state. That wasn’t my preference in 1999, but in a democracy the people rule, so let’s get over that and get on with it. The question NOW is how to get the republic back on the political agenda. We now have this strange situation where both major parties are headed by republicans, but neither is willing to make the running on the issue.

  6. [GB has been a republic in the past]

    Great Britain as a state has only existed since 1707. Before that England, Scotland and Ireland were separate kingdoms, although ruled by the same king. They were republics (of a sort) in Cromwell’s time, but military despotism is not exactly the model we would advance now.

  7. No 1405

    The republic issue is not one of utmost importance. It’s one of Keating’s petty cultural frolicks that makes no difference whatsoever to the lives of most Australians, except wasting a lot of their taxpayer dollars.

  8. […to change the constituiton you have to convince people…]

    People don’t need to be convinced – they just have to like the idea. How often are people convinced with party policies at election time? Very seldom, yet people still become passionate about one set of policies over another.

  9. Come of it GP – [a vote of no confidence in our constitution]!!

    Are you saying that Canada and India lack confidence in their constitutions? Aren’t they republics even tho they have stayed within the Commonwealth grouping?

    I resent the fact that you think many of us are rabble because we want our own Head of State.

    I will be disappointed if I don’t see a Republic before I depart this mortal coil but I agree that the time to do it is when the Queen is gone. I have a feeling she would be happy if we wanted to do it now but there are still too many allegiances amongst the oldies here for it to happen.

  10. Adam,

    The Australian Constitution is primarily a legal document. Precedence and gradualism have altered Law over time. Australians have shown themselve broadly disinclined to alter the Constitution. I suspect our Democracy will continue to evolve through small changes that do not rely on voting.

    To be frank, creating a new power source as a competitor to our Parliament does not excite me no matter how much the vested interests bray.

  14. [Australians have shown themselve broadly disinclined to alter the Constitution. ]
    So we should have a referendum giving the parliament a legislative mechanism for changing the constitution. Say 2:3 of both the house and the Senate. (not a joint sitting)

  15. [ What about a direct election model where the only candidates are the Governor’s of each State? ]

    Sounds like a sure-fire way of always electing the NSW or Vic governor… no thanks.

    How would the state governors be appointed, anyway… direct election? That’d have to change at the same time, I imagine.

  18. [Sounds like a sure-fire way of always electing the NSW or Vic governor… no thanks.]
    Doesn’t that tend to happen anyway with appointment of the G.G.?

    It certainly seems to happen with appointees to the high court. There has never been a South Australian.

  20. Socrates:
    [
    “WTF are the reserve powers”? (free constitutional law degree for correct answer)
    ]
    Ahem, the “reserve powers” are WTF the “powers that be” decide are necessary to do what they aren’t permitted, by the Constitution, to do. BTW, any loose change from a quid for a “constitutional law degree”?

    Now, anyone watching A-PAC? I think the New Zealand Speaker has a few lessons for our HoR.

  21. It’s an argument for gradual change. Much of what the republicans want is already in place. We are largely arguing about terminology.

  27. Isn’t it pathetic? The Australians of the 1890’s could devise the framework for a new nation and agree on it and jump through all the legal hurdles in a decade. In a decade we have achieved…?

  28. y’know Dio, you need to watch your intense dislike of Rann, i thought i was over the top fanatical in my absolute loathing of Howard and have to keep pulling myself up, but Dio old chum your catching up on me over Rann. 🙂

  29. [Diogenes, Is Rann also the cause of chirpies. You get it from parrots like you.]

    #1401 – GG, as per usual, Diog is a dead parrot hanging off the lowest branch of the Knowledge Tree, chirp… chirp… chirp indeed.

  30. [The Administrator does it in the NT. I think the Speaker does it in the ACT, or maybe nobody.]
    The Administrator could be a candidate too. If ACT wants a candidate they could either get an administrator, or become a state 😀

    I just think it would be terrible if the race for a generally ceremonial role in The President turns into a race between Labor and Liberal. In fact, if ACM is able to paint that picture well enough, then they may even be able to shoot down a direct election model.

    Voting for direct election of state governor would be better, and I imagine whoever wins would be pretty honoured.

  31. Adam,

    To me it’s like the old maths problem of being 100 kilometres from a chosen destination. You decide to get their by halving the distance in each travel day. So you go 100, 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25………. But, you never get there.

    However, in practical terms, you have.

  33. It’s time, the federal movement of the 1890s was driven by several practical issues. Australia needed a common immigration policy, a defence force and a customs union. Practical politicians from all parties accepted that. The debate was mainly over process issues rather than fundamental principles. The republic debate is about the basic issue of whether the Australian people should or should not choose their own head of state. I’m not sure why this still raises such violent hostility among conservatives, but it does.

  34. No 1427

    Yes, but there was a universal purpose back in the 1890s. The republic is not an issue that unites the nation. It is change for change’s sake. The Governor General has been an Australian citizen for more than 40 years.

  35. GG, I’m sorry but that makes no sense at all. Are you in favour of changing the constitution to give the Australian people the power to choose their own head of state, or are you not? That is the only question.

  37. [I’m not sure why this still raises such violent hostility among conservatives, but it does.]

    I’m not violently opposed to a republic, though I’d have to be convinced that whichever republican model was chosen was superior to what we have now. The ARM can’t even elucidate on their preferred model and yet they expect the majority of Australia to cast a vote of no confidence in our constitution with a simple “yes or no” question “should we have a republic”.

  39. No 1436

    The Governor General is our head of state for all intents and purposes. The Queen exercises no influence on our parliamentary democracy.

  40. [The change has already happened without the belligerant and divisive need to change the constitution.]

    Um, what on earth can this mean? The Queen is Australia’s head of state, and will be unless and until the constitution is changed. I take it from your last comment that you are happy for this to remain so. Well, I disagree.

  41. JB

    My dislike of Rann is actually more a dislike of John Hill and the Health Department. I hate spin and being BSed. Still, if Rann keeps backing these idiots so blindly, things like todays embarassment will happen. And my loathing for Howie cannot even be compared to Rann.

    GG and Finns

    Mrs Diogenes is very well and sends her regards. She also said that you should stop being so mean to her lovely husband.

    And it’s called Zeno’s paradox, GG.

  42. Regardless, there were some close calls in the final colonial referenda and some false starts IIRC. The justifications for federation seem irresistible only after the event. For example, we have GP offering inane royalist arguments which must be correct because we are still a constitutional monarchy and not a republic today.

  43. [I’m not violently opposed to a republic, though I’d have to be convinced that whichever republican model was chosen was superior to what we have now.]
    OK my minimalist model is to change every reference to Queen to President, and every reference to Governor General to President. Then repeal section 59, because I don’t want the President to have an effective veto power over legislation duly passed by the parliament.

    My prefered model would be as follows: Remove executive from legislature, make head of government and head of state the same person – Prime Minister. P.M. appoints ministers from in or out of legislature. Both houses of the legislature are selected via proportional repesentation so we don’t need another by-election ever again.

    Write into the constitution a mechanism for sacking the Head of Government / State. e.g. 2:3 of a joint sitting of both houses.
    [The change has already happened without the belligerant and divisive need to change the constitution.]
    No it hasn’t, the G.G. is not our Head of State. Our head of state should have allegiance to Australia and no other countries.

  44. Adam,

    The changes you crave have occurred apart from the written detail.

    Hey, but I’m not going to try and stop you or criticise you from tilting at windmills.

    Cheers.

  45. [The changes you crave have occurred apart from the written detail.]
    When you’re talking about a written constitution, isn’t written detail pretty important?

  49. [I’m not violently opposed to a republic, though I’d have to be convinced that whichever republican model was chosen was superior to what we have now.]
    The superiority is self-evident. Each voting Australian has the ability to have a say in who will be the Head of State of the nation rather than being tied to the lottery of some geneological parlour game. That’s the difference between being a citizen and being a subject. Perhaps GP should take advice from his republican heroes.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 29 of 33
1 … 28 29 30 … 33