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.
Adam,
The powers would/must be codified so as not to create an alternative political power.
[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]
couldnt agree more
ShowsOn, it hasn’t been used in over 300 years. But, your argument is legally wrong anyway.
Meantime in Venezeula Hugo Chavez continues to do alot of good for the poor.
Chavezs’ socialist doctrine has been truly great. Thus –
The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflationadjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.
Most of this growth has been in the nonoil sector of the economy, and the private sector has grown faster than the public sector.
During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and does take into account increased access to health care or education.
Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.
Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in inequality.
Real (inflationadjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.
From 1998-2006, infant mortality has fallen by more than onethird. The number of primary care physicians in the public sector increased 12fold from 1999-2007, providing health care to millions of Venezuelans who previously did not have access.
There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher education, where gross enrollment rates more than doubled from 1999/2000 to 2007/2008.
The labor market also improved substantially over the last decade, with unemployment dropping from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. During the current expansion it has fallen by more than half. Other labor market indicators also show substantial gains.
Over the past decade, the number of social security beneficiaries has more than doubled.
Over the decade, the government’s total public debt has fallen from 30.7 to 14.3 percent of GDP. The foreign public debt has fallen even more, from 25.6 to 9.8 percent of GDP.
Inflation is about where it was 10 years ago, ending the year at 31.4 percent. However it has been falling over the last half year (as measured by threemonth averages) and is likely to continue declining this year in the face of strong deflationary pressures worldwide.
Remember that there is a difference between a plebiscite and a referendum. Call a plebiscite on whether Australia should become a republic and have an an Australian citizen as head of State. Have a second plebiscite with various alternatives. Then have a referendum on amending the constitution to implement the preferred model from the previous plebiscite.
GP
how was Gough sacked?
By the GG or by the Queen
[They could abdicate their Australian “throne”, but we would still be a monarchy.]
Quite so. If King Charles III (or however he eventually styles himself) were to abdicate the throne of Australia, William would presumably become King of Australia. Which would be quite an odd situation if Charles had not abdicated the British throne.
The reserve powers would be exactly as they are now.
If they need to be codified (which they don’t), that can be done in one sentence. “The President must always act on the advice of a Prime Minister who has the support of a majority in the House of Representatives.”
does anyone know whats on lateline tonight?
[ShowsOn, it hasn’t been used in over 300 years. But, your argument is legally wrong anyway.]
I have read the Balfour declaration, that just talks about what the UK parliament can do with respect to other parliaments. It doesn’t say what the Queen can do, when the Queen is explicitly referenced in our constitution. Anyway, we have been through this before. If the Queen can sack the P.M., then why can’t they exercise Section 59?
Ron, the monarch is an instrument of convention. She is not going to reject the PM’s candidate for Governor General and nor is she able to strike down our legislation. Whilst republicans make a big deal that she is a foreigner, having a benign and largely impartial head of state has actually been good for Australia. Constitutional democracies are some of the most stable nations in the world.
dyno,
I actually favour the Australian Cricket Team model where you have different captains for the different forms of the game.
Because the Constitution specifies that the GG exercises the Queen’s powers in Australia. The Queen can do nothing in respect of Australia, despite being head of state, because she is bound by the Constitution.
[Constitutional democracies are some of the most stable nations in the world.]
Totally agree and that is why the UK would be foolish to get rid of the monarchy.
It’s different here, though.
Adam
[“The President must always act on the advice of a Prime Minister who has the support of a majority in the House of Representatives.”]
There is no reference to the Prime Minister in the constitution. So further sentences would be required.
Yes, that why I’m opposed to trying to codify the reserve powers. But that’s all the reserve powers are – the power to act when there is no PM having the confidence of the H of Reps.
[Then have a referendum on amending the constitution to implement the preferred model from the previous plebiscite.]
So you can either do it by two or three votes. The two vote option is
1) A plebiscite providing various models
2) A referendum on whether or not to implement the winning model
Or a three vote option
1) A plebiscite where voters express Yes or No to becoming a republic
2) A plebiscite where they choose their preferred model
3) A Referendum to implement the chosen model
[“The President must always act on the advice of a Prime Minister who has the support of a majority in the House of Representatives.”]
Wouldn’t that amount to ending the reserve powers?
[I actually favour the Australian Cricket Team model where you have different captains for the different forms of the game.]
Which gets us back to the “Warnie for President” campaign. He’d teach the Poms to stay out of our business!
No 1510
ShowsOn, just accept the fact that you’re wrong. No respectable student of law would agree with your hysterical claim that the queen will strike down our laws. The right hasn’t even been exercised for 300 years, it’s been overridden by various statutes both here and in the UK, so what makes you think that the section will suddenly be invoked?
Royal assent is, by convention, guaranteed.
No, it would codify them.
[The Queen can do nothing in respect of Australia, despite being head of state, because she is bound by the Constitution.]
I thought we agreed that the Queen could sack Kevin Rudd tomorrow if she wanted to?
The precedent has been set, the G.G. can sack the P.M. (via reserve powers), since the G.G. is the Queen’s representative, the Queen could also sack the P.M.
ShowsOn, GOP is right. Move along.
Adam’s right that the Queen could abdicate but Australia would remain a monarchy until we changed the constitution. That happened in Ireland.
After the Edward VIII abdication crisis, the statute of Westminster meant other Commonwealth countries had to pass their own Act of Succession to put George VI on the thrown because the UK Act no longer had coverage. (Except in Australia who had yet to pass the relevant legislation accepting the Statute.) The Irish removed Edward VIII, but didn’t put a new monarch on the thrown, though the country remained a constitutional monarchy with a Governor-General.
It was Fine Gael government in 1948 that suddenly decided to become a Republic. They had this wonderful ceremony where the removed an astonishingly severe statute of Queen Victoria from outside the Irish Parliament.
And in an odd link with Australia. When Sydney’s Queen Victoria Building was being renovated, they were hunting around for a second hand statute of Queen Victoria. They asked the Irish who said “Sure, we’ve got lots.” Like asking Russians for a second hand Marx or Lenin.
So, Sydney got that severe statue of Queen Victoria in George Street thanks to Ireland becoming a republic.
It is far more likely that an elected President would strike down a law passed by Parliament, than the Queen would.
[the Queen could sack Kevin Rudd tomorrow if she wanted to?]
Most certainly not. The Queen’s powers are DELEGATED TO THE GG – READ THE BLOODY CONSTITUTION
[the G.G. can sack the P.M. (via reserve powers)]
Kerr did so, and was legally within his rights, but he was in violation of the convention about acting on the advice of ministers. Any codification of the reserce powers would preclude a recurrence of such an event.
[No respectable student of law would agree with your hysterical claim that the queen will strike down our laws]
The question isn’t WILL, the question is CAN. And I don’t believe your half baked response tot he question anyway.
[so what makes you think that the section will suddenly be invoked?]
I am not worried that it will be invoked. I just think that more of our system of government should be codified as lines in a written document.
Any sections of the constitution that are inactive as you say shouldn’t be in there.
And again, your argument that the Queen has no role is actually an argument for a republic.
Dyno,
Prince Warnie the First with a dhurry on his lips and TAB ticket in hand.
Reserve powers has only been rarely used because only rarely does the Monarchy need to exercise them to carry out its deeply conservative and political daily function, defence of the institutions of the state.
And anti-democratic one, which is why you always get this slippery response from Monarchists of, why bother changing it? Yet for some strange reason, they cling on like grim death.
No 1524
Exactly, which is why I’m not exactly sure why everyone is so thrilled to abandon constitutional stability in favour of an activist republican model.
[Most certainly not. The Queen’s powers are DELEGATED TO THE GG – READ THE BLOODY CONSTITUTION]
Well you used to agree with me on that, you have changed your mind. Plus, the word isn’t “delegated”. The G.G. is the Queen’s REPRESENTATIVE.
If the Queen was in Australia on the day parliament opened, the Queen would sit in the President’s chair, not the G.G.
[Any codification of the reserce powers would preclude a recurrence of such an event.]
I think more of our system of government should be written into the constitution.
For example, there should be a mechanism for resolving conflicts over supply bills. Perhaps a joint sitting without an election.
[Exactly, which is why I’m not exactly sure why everyone is so thrilled to abandon constitutional stability in favour of an activist republican model.]
Spoken like a true conservative – always 100 years behind the times.
It’s Time
Anyone for Zimbabwe?
[The question isn’t WILL, the question is CAN. And I don’t believe your half baked response tot he question anyway.]
Fine, but you’d be the sole person disagreeing with a significant body of legal commentary and statue law that says otherwise.
s59 has always been a pet weapon of choice for intellectually lazy republicans, when elementary reading would reveal that the section is obsolete and ineffective.
[I just think that more of our system of government should be codified as lines in a written document.]
The UK constitution is a hybrid collection of statute and convention and they’re not unravelling in a morass of hysteria and fear of the monarch.
[Any sections of the constitution that are inactive as you say shouldn’t be in there.]
No argument from me. A referendum to repeal s59 would be fine.
[And again, your argument that the Queen has no role is actually an argument for a republic.]
The problem is that I like the constitution, by and large, the way it currently exists. I don’t want the instability and partisanship that a directly elected president will inflict.
[instability and partisanship]
Democracy?
ShowsOn, it is clear Section 59 refers to the Queen as the representative of Imperial authority in London. That clause existed/exists in simlar form in all the state constitutions. It was always considered that the constitutions existed under imperial authority. Section 59 would be exercised by the Queen on advice of the UK government, not the Australian. That is the purpose of the provisions.
It was the Durham comission into self-government in Canada in the 1830s that invented this idea of self-government within the framework of Empire, and the granting of self-government in all 19th century colonies included provisions such as Section 59.
The only person who arges Section 59 and 60 still have relevance is Sir David Smith.
[Spoken like a true conservative – always 100 years behind the times.]
How am I a century behind the times? Do we really want a president striking down laws regularly? I certainly wouldn’t. I’d much prefer stable government over chaos. The US model is not one which is desirable.
[ Any sections of the constitution that are inactive as you say shouldn’t be in there.
No argument from me. A referendum to repeal s59 would be fine.]
And all other references to the Queen, because you said she has no role.
[I don’t want the instability and partisanship that a directly elected president will inflict.]
Are you saying partisanship didn’t play a role in 1975? Secret meetings between the G.G. and the leader of the opposition? Secret meetings between the G.G. and the Cheif Justice?
[It’s Time
Anyone for Zimbabwe?]
??
Anyone for pre-republican Nepal?
No 1534
Are you saying that Australia is not a democracy?
[If the Queen was in Australia on the day parliament opened, the Queen would sit in the President’s chair, not the G.G.]
From Wikipedia:
“In 1953, prior to Queen Elizabeth II’s first royal visit (also the first visit to Australia by its reigning monarch), it was planned for her to take part in various formal processes of her Australian government. However, the government’s legal advisors discovered that the Constitution of Australia vested all of the Queen’s statutory powers in the office of her Governor-General, with the exception of the power to appoint the Governor-General him or herself. The Royal Powers Act 1953 was passed in order to address this anomaly, and enabled the Queen, when she was personally present in Australia, to exercise any power defined in an Act of the Australian parliament that is exercisable by her Governor-General.”
So, the Queen can only exercise her functions when she is personally present in Australia. However, constitutional thinking has evolved a lot since 1953. It would now be unthinkable for the Queen to exercise any independent political role in Australia, even if she was personally present.
Not being able to decide your Head of State is clearly not democratic. Monarchy compromises democracy, obviously.
Antony
some Q’s
if her majesty directed one of HER GG’s to dismiss a gvt-they would or wouldnt?
On my reading of your comment each GG is effectively HOS?
The Queen cannot direct the GG. The GG exercises all the functions of a head of state, without actually being one.
[The only person who arges Section 59 and 60 still have relevance is Sir David Smith.]
Interesting Antony, thanks.
Any opinion on whether or not the Queen could sack the current Australian P.M.? Or the P.M.s of Canada, New Zealand or the U.K.?
[However, the government’s legal advisors discovered that the Constitution of Australia vested all of the Queen’s statutory powers in the office of her Governor-General]
I want to see this tested in the high court thank you 😀
[It would now be unthinkable for the Queen to exercise any independent political role in Australia, even if she was personally present.]
More likely they’ll just never schedule a parliament opening when the Queen is here.
[Not being able to decide your Head of State is clearly not democratic. Monarchy compromises democracy, obviously.]
Hear, hear!
[Any opinion on whether or not the Queen could sack the current Australian P.M.? ]
I promise I won’t do a Mark Latham inspired “As Antony just said…”
” Kerr did so, and was legally within his rights, but he was in violation of the convention about acting on the advice of ministers. ”
Forgive my ignorance, I hated Australian History when I was at school, but where does convention stand on the G-G acting on advice from ministers when there has been a successful vote of no confidnce?
[How am I a century behind the times? Do we really want a president striking down laws regularly? I certainly wouldn’t. I’d much prefer stable government over chaos.]
LOL We need the guiding hand of god and monarchy to keep the plebs in their proper station.
[but where does convention stand on the G-G acting on advice from ministers when there has been a successful vote of no confidnce?]
Convention says whoever can ensure the G.G. they have confidence of the House can be appointed P.M.
But hey, that’s a convention. If the vote was really close, who’s to say the G.G. wouldn’t trust or believe them?
[where does convention stand on the G-G acting on advice from ministers when there has been a successful vote of no confidnce?]
Once it is clear that the PM has lost the confidence of the House, the GG is not obliged to act on his advice. This was the situation with Robin Gray in Tasmania, when the governor refused him a second election after he lost the first one, and in Qld when the governor refused Bjelke-Petersen’s request to sack the entire Cabinet.
[This was the situation with Robin Gray in Tasmania, when the governor refused him a second election after he lost the first one, and in Qld when the governor refused Bjelke-Petersen’s request to sack the entire Cabinet.]
So are both these examples of the Governors exercising reserve powers?