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.
Antony, what exactly do you mean by this:
[The emergence of Pauline Hanson and her new One Nation Party seemed to be viewed in Canberra as an opportunity to leak preference votes away from Labor. Older hands in Queensland knew better the dangers of rural populism, as was revealed as the Coalition vote was smashed at the 1998 election, its vote down 17.7%, One Nation polling higher than either the Liberal or National Parties and electing 11 MPs.]
Do you mean that the Coalition partie’s play for One Nation preferences just alienated urban Liberal voters, so they went straight over and voted for Labor around Brisbane and the Sunshine coast? So the coalition didn’t really gain from their deals?
[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.]
That omits the minor detail of how the President is chosen, which is what sank the referendum in 1999.
[And it’s called Zeno’s paradox, GG.]
Not a paradox anymore, thanks to calculus and tests for series convergence.
[Both houses of the legislature are selected via proportional repesentation so we don’t need another by-election ever again.]
What’s the point of two elected on PR? Won’t their make up virtually be the same?
adam,shows
far from being men of la mancha< i think you have both raised rational thoughts regarding a republic.
The First step should be along the lines of a public information campaign outlining what currently exists and what changes would be needed to become a republic.
then at the next election pose the simple Q.
should we become a republic.
the rest will fall into place
No 1443
It’s worth pointing out that s59 of the constitution as it currently operates is obsolete and is no longer effective.
From when has this silliness that the G-G is our Head of State been doing the rounds? Is this another Monarchist ruse to cover the embarrassment of the Windsors?
Adam,
The Bovver boy admonishments don’t cut it.
Socrates earlier put up some changes he was seeking and I said I beleived they were already in place.
Maybe you can do the same.
[That omits the minor detail of how the President is chosen, which is what sank the referendum in 1999.]
Minimalist model, direct election where the candidates are the state governors.
Maximal model, direct election (no silly electoral college) of whoever wants to be a candidate.
No 1454
Of course most rational people would like a republic, however the devil has always been in the detail. It is therefore futile to ask a “simple” question such as “should we become a republic” given that such a change requires wholesale modification of our constitution.
Oh dear, it looks like the English and West Indian Crickets re heading for “Oh collapso”. Bollywood Cricket rules OK.
[LONDON (Reuters) – Jonathan Marland, who last week aborted his challenge to Giles Clarke as chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), described the ECB’s connection with Texas billionaire Allen Stanford as a “fiasco.”
Stanford and three of his companies were charged by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday with “massive” fraud involving a multi-billion dollar investment scheme. He has denied any wrongdoing.]
http://uk.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUKTRE51H21Y20090218
Diog, please re-assure the delightful Mrs. D that the Amigos never bowl at the body with a packed on-side.
Left of field idea – Make the PM head of state, no President (directly elected or otherwise) but as a check, make the leader of the party someone elected by the populace – US style.
[then at the next election pose the simple Q.
should we become a republic.
the rest will fall into place]
No it won’t, there still has to be a referendum, and that referendum has to specify how an Australian head of state will be chosen. You can’t dodge this issue.
No 1458
The problem with direct election is that it politicises a role that traditionally has been ceremonial and reserved. For all the flaws of a constitutional monarchy, it has been a recipe for stable government unhindered by a partisan head of state.
Does a referendum have to be “Yes” or “No” or can you tick one of the above?
If the first, then you’d have to have three votes, based on what some people are suggesting. One plebiscite saying “Republic, yes or no?” another plebiscite with a list of potential models and then the final referendum with the successful model.
#1463 Since when is denying people the right to choose a Head of State not been political?
Of course the monarchy is political, it is just that the politics behind it is too embarrassing to admit.
[that referendum has to specify how an Australian head of state will be chosen]
No,if the public agree via referendum to a republic then the Q of how to elect a HOS is put at a seperate refendum ( ideally within 12 mths of the original Q)
hare-brained schemes aside, there are only two practical alternatives:
* Direct election, as in Ireland and Austria. You could specify that ex-politicians can’t be candidates if you want to keep politics out of it, but of couse the elections will still be political. Every poll shows that this is what people want.
* Indirect election, by the federal parliament or by some national electoral college (as in Germany). This model was rejected in 1999 and probably would be again.
[The problem with direct election is that it politicises a role that traditionally has been ceremonial and reserved.]
Directly elected presidents aren’t always “politicised” in how they carry out their roles in other countries, even if they come from political parties. If they were blatantly political and kept vetoing legislation coming from their political opposition, for example, they’d be thrown out.
[No it won’t, there still has to be a referendum, and that referendum has to specify how an Australian head of state will be chosen. You can’t dodge this issue.]
Exactly. The “two stage” process is a waste of time. The crunch question (ie the actual referendum) still has to say (words to the effect of) “here is a proposed change to the Constitution – do you agree?”. It is a yes/no question, we are changing a piece of legislation.
[For all the flaws of a constitutional monarchy, it has been a recipe for stable government unhindered by a partisan head of state.]
Whereas the US is….?
Oz
It’s actually still a paradox concerning whether space is infinitely divisible or has quanta. But when you get down to such small distances, the laws of quantum mechanics kick in and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle takes over.
[then at the next election pose the simple Q.
should we become a republic.]
I think the question should be “Do you think Australia should have an Australian Head of State?”
As we discussed a few pages ago, if you use the word “Republic”, then some people may think “Well it depends on what you mean by Republic?”
[What’s the point of two elected on PR? Won’t their make up virtually be the same?]
I think the best argument against PR in the House of Representatives is that it could lead to unstable government. If the Executive is removed from the legislature, then that becomes irrelevant. For the chamber to be truly representative, it should use a form of PR. However, the number of seats each state gets should still be based on population, whereas the Senate would be based on the current system.
The benefit would be minor parties would get elected to the house, and be able to work with the majors to get some of their views across. The over all benefit of not forming government there would be it may break down the rigid discipline of the 2 party system.
[It’s worth pointing out that s59 of the constitution as it currently operates is obsolete and is no longer effective.]
Who says so? All the people that try to tell me this can’t definitively explain how or why. The UK parliament can’t make laws for Australia anymore, but that doesn’t say anything about the Queen using her veto that is explicitly provided for her in S59.
[From when has this silliness that the G-G is our Head of State been doing the rounds? Is this another Monarchist ruse to cover the embarrassment of the Windsors?]
It was a very successful gambit used repeatedly during the 1999 referendum by David Flint. It is still popular with some Liberal politicians:
[Thank you for your email regarding the republic debate on 20 April.
In response to your question, the Australian head of State has been recognised by successive governments as the Governor-General, an Australian appointed by the government of the day.
Once again, thank you for your correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Cory
CORY BERNARDI
Liberal Senator for South Australia]
[No,if the public agree via referendum to a republic then the Q of how to elect a HOS is put at a seperate refendum ( ideally within 12 mths of the original Q)]
Yeah but that won’t work because if you have a number of choices you aren’t going to get a majority of people supporting one. And I don’t even think you can do a referendum that way.
ShowsOn – it means there were people in Canberra who thought of One Nation only in terms of the party finishing third and directing preferences. Older National Party hands in Queensland who remembered the battles with the League of Rights in the 1970s had a stronger inkling of what was going on in the National Party’s rural seats. And National Party people who wanted to get stuck into Hanson from day one proved correct given what happened at the 1998 election and at elections since.
[No,if the public agree via referendum to a republic then the Q of how to elect a HOS is put at a seperate refendum ( ideally within 12 mths of the original Q)]
Can’t agree with that, gusface. It’s not going to be possible to put the question without proposing an actual form of words. Once you’ve done that, you’ve proposed the model.
[It’s actually still a paradox concerning whether space is infinitely divisible or has quanta.
Not in theoretical maths it isn’t!
[No,if the public agree via referendum to a republic then the Q of how to elect a HOS is put at a seperate refendum ( ideally within 12 mths of the original Q)]
Yes, that’s what I meant, and I think that is what Rudd supports, although he’s carefully avoided any comment on this since he’s been PM. But there STILL has to be a decision as to what method of choosing a head of state to put to the people at referendum. There can’t be a multiple-choice referendum.
No 1470
[Whereas the US is….?]
…a rabble.
[The benefit would be minor parties would get elected to the house, and be able to work with the majors to get some of their views across. The over all benefit of not forming government there would be it may break down the rigid discipline of the 2 party system.]
I wasn’t talking about the benefits of PR in the Lower House I was wondering what’s the point of a PR Senate when you have a PR lower house.
Why do we need a President? Why can’t the Prime Minister be Head of State?
[Why do we need a President? Why can’t the Prime Minister be Head of State?]
How do you resolve potential deadlocks? Who has the power to dissolve the parliament?
[Of course the monarchy is political, it is just that the politics behind it is too embarrassing to admit.]
Good point. The Monarchy represents Conservatism. After all, isn’t that why the House of Lords was stacked for years with Conservatives?
[Direct election, as in Ireland and Austria. You could specify that ex-politicians can’t be candidates if you want to keep politics out of it]
Could this specification be made legally? Don’t we have freedom of association? How could you say that political association invalidates someone from being a candidate?
After Xenophon blocked the stimulus bill last Thursday, some people were saying the problem is that the Senate wasn’t designed for political parties, so Senators shouldn’t be allowed to be in parties. I strongly doubt such a law would be legal.
No 1479
Personally, the best example of why PR is a disaster is Italy. Welcome to governments of perpetual dithering, bull and bluster, made up of unholy coalitions and sullied by rabid partisan rancour.
[the Australian head of State has been recognised by successive governments as the Governor-General, an Australian appointed by the government of the day.]
That’s just an outright lie, and I’m amazed even Liberal Senators would think they could get away with it. No government has EVER regarded the GG as a head of state.
[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?]
Canada is still a monarchy. India is a republic. Both are in the British Commonwealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations
[Why do we need a President? Why can’t the Prime Minister be Head of State?]
I think we’d prefer to have someone else cutting ribbons and hosting tea parties while someone responsible to the electorate is doing governing stuff.
[Why do we need a President? Why can’t the Prime Minister be Head of State?]
Then the PM really would be an elected dictator.
Diogenes,
I actually thought you were talking about naming the Hospital after Nick Xenophon. Silly me, but as you know, being totally wrong never stopped me before.
This maths concept was actaully explained to me in terms of a lovely naked women being the eventual target. As you Know, certain male physiology can take place in these situations. So, being near enough is good enough for all practical purpose.
There endeth my contribution to Constitutional Reform.
[I wasn’t talking about the benefits of PR in the Lower House I was wondering what’s the point of a PR Senate when you have a PR lower house.]
Tradition! No seriously, one option would be going to a unicameral parliament. But Personally I’d keep both for checks and balances.
[There can’t be a multiple-choice referendum.]
But shouldn’t that mean you put the various models FIRST? And then whichever model wins SECOND?
Oh, and how do you know which model wins? First pass the post? Optional preferential?
If not then you’d need THREE (one for generic yes or no, one to decide on the model, then a last one to approve / dissapprove the model that won)
[How do you resolve potential deadlocks? Who has the power to dissolve the parliament?]
They seem to manage in the US. Obviously our system is different but I’d be happy for the High Court to do it if necessary.
[Who says so? All the people that try to tell me this can’t definitively explain how or why. The UK parliament can’t make laws for Australia anymore, but that doesn’t say anything about the Queen using her veto that is explicitly provided for her in S59.]
A preposterous argument. Section 59 is an ineffective clause in our constitution for two reasons.
Firstly, the reserve power to withdraw Royal Assent has been rarely used in the British constitutional context. The last time this was exercised was by Queen Anne with the Scottish Militia Bill 1708. No respectable scholar of British constitutional law would dispute that by convention royal assent is granted. This is how constitutional monarchy has evolved, and that convention applies to the Australian constitutional situation.
Secondly, this clause was drafted and intended as a safeguard in the context of 19th century British imperialism – a time when the Colonial Validity Act 1865 existed.
The Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930 was to affirm the British governments position of treating the dominions as autonomous. (Balfour Declaration.) This renders Section 59 for all intents and purposes obsolete.
Section 59 is otiose. Perhaps monarchists go silent on this because there is no issue to answer! If republicans feel so strongly about this clause they could instead focus their campaign efforts on repealing this obsolete clause via constitutional referendum. You will not hear any complaints from Buckingham Palace, nor from monarchists.
I don’t care if we become a Republic or not. It is anomalous and silly that we don’t have an Australian head of state (don’t even bother, GP), but it’s not in my list of Australia’s top 100 problems.
One point, though – direct election is a mistake. I’ll vote no to that, and yes to a model similar to 1999. Which probably means I’m destined to be on the losing side in two consecutive republic referenda.
GG
I know I’ve said it before but it does bear repeating. You are a very sick puppy. 😀
[That’s just an outright lie, and I’m amazed even Liberal Senators would think they could get away with it. No government has EVER regarded the GG as a head of state.]
I replied with a link to the protocol page of Department of Foreign affairs and Trade:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/protocol/Protocol_Guidelines/15.html
[15.1 Head of State and Governor-General
Australia’s Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II]
I asked Senator Bernardi if he felt their protocol page was incorrect. Not surprisingly, he didn’t reply.
Can parl do most of the “groundwork”?
then the electorate is left to decide which model is best
(could queenie-liz or charles actually declare us a republic ie cut the apron strings)
[But shouldn’t that mean you put the various models FIRST? And then whichever model wins SECOND?]
You could do it that way – that has some logic.
[If not then you’d need THREE (one for generic yes or no, one to decide on the model, then a last one to approve / dissapprove the model that won)]
That’s the dilemma – you still need to say yes or no to an actual, specific, proposed change.
GP is right on s59. It’s a dead letter.
The Australian people have voted against indirect election. I think it would be very arrogant to try and run that one again, and in any case it would certainly lose again, so what’s the point? The choice now is between the status quo and direct election. Direct election is not my first choice, but it operates in Ireland, Finland, Iceland, Malta, Slovenia and Austria without doing any great harm.
[Firstly, the reserve power to withdraw Royal Assent has been rarely used in the British constitutional context. ]
I couldn’t care if it is RARE, that’s not the point I’m making. Haley’s comet RARELY comes past earth, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, or won’thappen again.
[Secondly, this clause was drafted and intended as a safeguard in the context of 19th century British imperialism – a time when the Colonial Validity Act 1865 existed.]
[If republicans feel so strongly about this clause they could instead focus their campaign efforts on repealing this obsolete clause via constitutional referendum.]
Wonderful, since you are arguing the Queen has no role in our constitutional system, that is anther reason why we should be a republic.
Thank you for supporting my over all argument, have a nice day.
[could queenie-liz or charles actually declare us a republic ie cut the apron strings]
No. They could abdicate their Australian “throne”, but we would still be a monarchy. This can ONLY change by carrying a referendum.
Generic Person
Posted Wednesday, February 18, 2009 at 9:14 pm | Permalink
#1402
“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.”
Generic Person you ar a monarchists and what you suggest would allow rotalists to destroy proposal again , which is why you want Republicons to comit harri
karri ….again….and some pro republicon bloggers here I see ar falling for it..again
Conseding as some hav here unwittingly that it must be direct electon model up front….. allows both Royalists AND pro Republicons (but concerned about conflicts of ‘mandates’ via direct electon model) both to undermine th WHOLE basic Republicon proposal before even first getting an Austalian Head of State agreed to by th pooblic
…WHATEVER his powers ar and even if they remain as now , and HOWEVER its desided how to elect him (leave for ref number 2 and prior public debate after ist pleb is passed
ie get yes to Republic first..tacticly , without too much ammunition given to all th ‘opponents’
Now what ar advantages to oz of a switch
1/ Australian’s Head of govt actual appointment is pre approved by th queen of a foreign Country …vs plus for a change:
we ar a soveregn Nation , we should decide and appove our Head of state by ourselves..our Counrty should hav th responsibbility ourselves alone to do so
2/ Queen & offspring live in palaces…vs plus for a change:
An oz solely approvd Head of State should not as not consistent with oz egalitar..
3/ Queen has numerous actual powers eg pardons vs plus for change:
An oz solely approved should give eg pardons on oz people not a UK citizen
4/ Queen has numerous reserve powers eg via HER representaitive GG can sack a democraticaly elected Govt/PM OR refuse an OK to a democraticaly passed BillsLaws passed thr HOR/Senate
vs plus for change:
th poiwer to sack a PM or reject Bills (if to be still allowed) should rest with an oz solely approvd Head of State…and not via an unlected foreign monarch’s Australian ‘representative’ GG that that foreign monarch pre aproved .. we ar a sovereign nation
It is royalists job to justify why a foreign citizan ie th queen has a pre approval right & powers over th appointment of our sovereing Countrys top person (Head of State) , and why such a foreign citizen should via HER representative th Guvnor has any reserve powers to sack our democraticaly elected Govts , our PM’s and also hav powers disbar HOR/Senate aproved Bills by discretion…(ALL of these reserve powers themselves ar pro’s for a Republic , but not clever to highlite that legal complexity mindfeld
.
lets get that ok first , …ie our President approved by oz alone with all existing GG powers remaining as is , before complacating questons of those reserve poweres & th method of Presidnts election