Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor

Essential Research goes the other way from Newspoll on voting intention, while both pollsters suggest the same-sex marriage plebiscite will record a high participation rate and a resounding yes vote.

Essential Research moves a point in favour of the Coalition this week as a particularly strong result for Labor a fortnight ago washes out of the two-week rolling average, leaving Labor’s lead at 53-47. Primary votes are only provided for the minor parties, so we’ll have to wait on that for the release of the full report later today (UPDATE: here it is: Coalition steady on 37%, Labor down two to 37%, Greens steady on 9%, One Nation steady on 8%). The poll also finds 33% in favour of committing military support to the United States in the event of conflict with North Korea, with 38% opposed and 26% uncommitted. Sixty-one per cent believed parliament should have a say on the matter, with only 22% favouring the prime ministerial prerogative. On the question of the biggest threats to global security, The Guardian relates the results the most favoured responses were, in descending order, terrorism, North Korean aggression, climate change, US aggression, Chinese aggression and Russian aggression.

Essential also provides one of two sets of new numbers on the same-sex marriage plebiscite/survey, the other being a second tranche of results from the weekend’s Newspoll. Both record similarly strong majorities saying they will participate: 63% for definite and 18% for probably from Essential, compared with 67% and 15% from Newspoll. They also both find supporters more likely to vote than opponents, although in both cases this is based on very small samples of prospective non-voters. The two pollsters get different outcomes on the question of whether the postal plebiscite should be held: Newspoll records 49% “in favour” and 43% “opposed”, while Essential has 39% approval and 49% disapproval. Newspoll also finds 62% in favour of “guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion if (parliament) legislates for same-sex marriage”.

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.

574 comments on “Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 11 of 12
1 … 10 11 12

  1. C@tmomma @ #475 Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017 – 8:08 pm

    That one has family back up the line who came from another country should not cancel out, by way of Dual Citizenship, the qualifications to stand for parliament of someone who can trace their family line back to Indigenous Australians, I would have thought.

    I wonder which lineage he acknowledges, and which one he is reluctant to admit.

  4. Player One @ #501 Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017 – 8:27 pm

    C@tmomma @ #475 Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017 – 8:08 pm

    That one has family back up the line who came from another country should not cancel out, by way of Dual Citizenship, the qualifications to stand for parliament of someone who can trace their family line back to Indigenous Australians, I would have thought.

    I wonder which lineage he acknowledges, and which one he is reluctant to admit.

    You fiirst!

  5. Well bringing in some genetics into the case it is fairly obvious that both Bob and his brother Carl have strong Mediterranean heritage. In all probability it will be found that His fathers family were Maronite Christians but somewhere on his mother’s side he has both Cameleer and indigeneous heritage. according to Wiki, there were good relations between the Muslim cameleers and the indigenous people. I am nearly 100% sure that Charles Perkins shared a similar heritage

  10. Ides

    His father was originally an ALP MP.

    His father is known for getting rid of the racial line during the war and to his credit took on the yanks over it. The yanks still kept black and white troops segregated.

  11. P1:

    Interesting fact on the choice of which lineage you identify with. Mal Brough’s sister Carol (I think that was her name) was married to a local Aboriginal man from Kalgoorlie who headed up a local Aboriginal health service. He ended up resigning over allegations of mismanagement etc, and last I heard he was working as a stockman on a cattle station somewhere.

    Thing is, Carol identified as Aboriginal. Yet Mal never did.

  12. TFAB

    I am not sure that the country from which Katter senior senior emigrated would still exist. They could be citizens of France Britain, Palestine or Syria

  13. From Wikipedia, about Bob Katter SENIOR:

    Katter was born in Brisbane, Queensland, of Maronite Catholic Lebanese descent and has been described as a cousin of the poet Khalil Gibran. His father was one of the two dozen original investors to start Qantas.

    So dtt is not quite right. Again.

    From Wikipedia, about Bob Katter JUNIOR:

    Katter was born in Cloncurry, Queensland, the son of Robert Carl Katter, the member for Kennedy from 1966-90, and his wife, Mabel, and raised Catholic. Katter Jr. is 4th, possibly 5th generation Australia

    Now, looking at a picture of Katter Senior:

    And Katter Junior:

    And knowing that Katter Senior did this:

    One of his first actions in taking over the cinema was to remove the steel railings which separated the Aboriginal patrons from other Australians

    I am presuming that Katter Senior fell in love with one of those patrons, Mabel. : )
    Hence Katter Junior’s Indigenous heritage. Which would also go back further on his mother’s side.

    As I said, this is speculation based upon a few facts, on my part.

  14. Boerwar:

    “So, how is Turnbull travelling now that he has unleashed the homophobes?”

    While I don’t think it’s a good thing, and no doubt it is going to hurt some vulnerable people (including youth), in the long run, there may be some good that comes out of it – i.e. exposing certain religious groups as being the hate-filled hypocrites they are, and the backlash they and some other prominent individual homophobes will hopefully receive for showing their true colours. Also, it shines a rather bright light on the nastiness and pettiness of the Coalition for all to see. And how weak a leader Malcolm is, and what price he’s willing to sell his soul for.

  17. Any of our politicians with a Norwegian background? $1 trillion awaits!

    “Norway’s sovereign-wealth fund, the world’s biggest, topped a $1 trillion valuation after the best half-year return in its history.

    The fund announced a 2.6% return on its investments in the second quarter of this year, helped by a solid performance from its stock-market portfolio.

    Norges Bank Investment Management, the arm of the central bank that manages the fund, said Tuesday the quarterly return equated to 202 billion Norwegian kroner ($25.6 billion).

    The total value of Norway’s sovereign-wealth fund was 8.02 trillion kroner on June 30.

    Norway passed the milestone despite pressure faced by sovereign-wealth funds around the world. Ultralow interest rates are crimping returns and cheap oil is cutting into the income of the largely resource-dependent countries rich enough to possess such funds.

    “The stock markets have performed particularly well so far this year, and the fund’s return in the two first quarters was 6.5%,” Trond Grande, deputy chief executive officer of Norges Bank Investment Management, said.

  18. Well bringing in some genetics into the case

    Personally I think introducing genetics into this is somewhat unseemly. The Constitution states that dual citizens are ineligible to be elected to our parliament. Let that be the baseline rather than trawling around a person’s genetic makeup.

  20. citizen

    I should have added that given the Australia at the time the ‘Ghans’ could have actually been from anywhere in the region as they would have “all looked the same” to the locals.

  22. There was some talk that the ABS marriage survey would be challenged in the High Court.

    Has this happened? Is it happening? And, if so, is there any chance this could mess with the already short time-frame the government has insisted upon?

  23. Chinda:

    Last I heard the HC will hear the case against the PP in early September. There may be updates more recent than that however.

  24. The Sudmalis incoming passenger card …

    There was a stouch between the Dept of Immigration and Australian Archives (‘AA’) about retention of ‘Incoming Passenger cards’ in the mid to late 1980’s. I recall that AA required them to be retained but would not actually take custody of them because of storage space restraints.

    This was during a period of very real discontent by Govt Agencies about the operations of AA.

    Immigration, I recall, countered said that they would purchase shipping containers for them and have them delivered to AA storage facilities.

    Whether this actually happened I have no idea and I doubt that any grouping of the cards would have been any more than than standard AA Storage boxes with the cards simply batched by arrival point and date.

    That AA or Immigration spent money to index theses cards by date, name and arrival date seems unlikely.

    So if AA turned up Sudmalis incoming passenger card I would rate as a miracle and whoever made the request must have been able to provide some very specific information. These days I expect that the physical cards would be scanned by Immigration/Customs and the actual card destroyed.

    Fact sheet on reasons for a document in the ‘Open Period’ (older than 20 years) being exempt –

    http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs46.aspx

    If the document was requested under the FOI Act the exemption reasons are broadly similar.

    Some existing documents must now exist that are both in the Archives Act ‘Open Period’ and also able to be requested under the FOI Act. At that time there was a gap between documents available under the acts – older ones under the Archives Act, then some years of documents not acessable at all and then more recent ones via the FOI Act. It may be now that those covered by both regimes are dealt with depending on who has current custody.

    I mention that ‘Ministerial Certificates’ for documents requested seem to be a ‘feature’ these days i.e. Brandis claiming that the work to exempt entries from his office diaries regarding who he met with and when would involve immense amounts of work.

    Most of the above is simply recollection of some involvement in the work area in the late 1980’s and I wouldn’t vouch for its accuracy!

  28. S44(i) is archaic.

    http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/

    People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland

    Candidates must be nominated by ten parliamentary electors of the constituency they wish to stand in.

    Dual Citizens are not disqualified though aliens are…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_Disqualification_Act_1975

    s44(i) should be construed to disqualify:

    – Australian Citizens that have formed a n allegiance or attachment or adherence to a foreign power
    – Aliens

  29. CTar:

    Very interesting! Thanks for sharing.

    Personally my view is that the more our parliament and our country is drawn down the dual citizenship rabbit warren, the more obvious it becomes that Constitutional reform of that section is needed.

  31. Interestingly, under UK law it is possible for Members of Commonwealth Parliaments to also be elected to the Commons. They do not need to be British Subjects to be eligible for election. It is sufficient they be citizens of the relevant Commonwealth country.

  33. Oh goody. Barnaby can finish off his illustrious career in the UK.

    But will he have the right to abode, or will he have to commute to vote?

  34. briefly:

    Well yes, UK law would say that given that the British head of state is also the same head of state to other Commonwealth countries. It just further emphasises the ridiculousness of our own Constitution that a British citizen or Canadian citizen or NZ citizen (to highlight recent egs come to light here) have these ridiculous restrictions placed upon them.

  35. I see already that the push for people researching family history must have at some point must have generated funds to index the ‘Incomming Passenger cards’.

    Interesting that it is still the Dept of Immigration that has them.

  36. ‘– Australian Citizens that have formed a n allegiance or attachment or adherence to a foreign power’

    And how is this to be determined? I would have thought this would open up a lot more grey areas than dual citizenship.

  37. briefly

    Interestingly, under UK law it is possible for Members of Commonwealth Parliaments to also be elected to the Commons. They do not need to be British Subjects to be eligible for election. It is sufficient they be citizens of the relevant Commonwealth country.

    I’d guess that the C’wealth Countries this applies to is not all countries that were part of the ‘British Empire’

  38. Ha… Norway.

    “Norway’s sovereign-wealth fund, the world’s biggest, topped a $1 trillion valuation after the best half-year return in its history.”

    NOT being independent has cost Scotland dearly.

    Since the 2015 oil crash, Norway and Scotland have exported approximately the same amount of oil.

    Norway made 29 Billion pounds. The UK Government which “mis-” manages Scotland’s oil lost 23 million pounds.

    Norway taxed Shell 4.6bn pounds…. the UK Government gave Shell 179 million pounds!!

  40. From the excerpts sprocket has posted of Brandis’ submission to the HC, he (Brandis not sprocket), is hoping for a quick, or at least quicker, resolution if the facts are not contested.

    I think the Nats and Greens, for better or worse will accept that. However Mr Empirical – Roberts, may beg to differ. Unless his case is resolved in his favor, quickly, he will be the spanner in the works.

  41. Voting in the UK General Elections.

    I have what was termed at the time in the UK ‘a continuing right of entry’ – broadly the same as a ‘Resident’ i.e. I can come and go and work in the UK.

    I was surprised to be told sometime later that this meant I could vote in General Elections.

    I never have but do vote in the City of London local elections on the basis I’m a ‘rate payer’ there.

  42. zoomster
    ‘– Australian Citizens that have formed a n allegiance or attachment or adherence to a foreign power’

    And how is this to be determined? I would have thought this would open up a lot more grey areas than dual citizenship.

    …I think this was the original intention of 44(i)…the example from 1897 being naturalised subjects that had formerly served in the armed forces of a foreign power. There would other examples, such as where a citizen had actively applied for foreign citizenship or been recruited to the security services of foreign power…

  43. Australian media:

    “Bill Shorten has questions to answer..”

    ..hmm, where have I heard THAT before?

    plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

  44. From my limited understanding, the idea of dual citizenship is in itself a murky on. In spite of the common usage, a person does not “hold” or “acquire” citizenship. The relationship is the other way around. A State “claims” persons as citizens.

  45. PB ‘group think’ …

    I’m amused a Rex’s ‘Echo Chamber’ claims.

    If there’s one thing that ‘echos’ here it’s Rex’s ongoing posts saying that Labor would be galzillion seats ahead if Shorten was not the leader.

  46. CTar1
    briefly

    Interestingly, under UK law it is possible for Members of Commonwealth Parliaments to also be elected to the Commons. They do not need to be British Subjects to be eligible for election. It is sufficient they be citizens of the relevant Commonwealth country.

    I’d guess that the C’wealth Countries this applies to is not all countries that were part of the ‘British Empire’

    I think you’d be right in that!

  48. I had a look at UK eligibility the other day. Commonwealth citizens with permanent residence can stand for the UK parliament.

    So can Irish citizens (Republic of)

  49. The oath/affirmation required to take a seat in the UK Parliament would doubtlessly breach the allegiance, obedience and adherence ban in 44i and thus also 45i. That means that a UK MP could not be elected as to the Commonwealth Parliament and a sitting Comonwealth MP who took up their seat in the UK Parliament would cause their Australian seat to be vacant.

    Australians standing for the UK Parliament are required to be resident in the UK and that would make holding a seat in the Australian Parliament very hard, especially considering that more than 2 months absence from the Australian Parliament causes an automatic vacancy (they have no similar rule in the UK, they would have a lot of by-elections in Northern Ireland if they did).

    Australians resident, who are not British or European Citizens in the UK need either Right of Abode or a visa. Having the Right of Abode almost certainly qualifies as being subject to the “being entitled to the Rights and Privileges of a Citizen of a foreign power” ban in 44i (and if it does not, it is unlikely anything will) and thus would ban the holder from the Australian Parliament (It is the next potential wave of 44i issues for the current Parliament as many Australians born before 1983 qualify for the Right of Abode in the UK).

    There is also the question of whether or not visas, especially indefinite visas, constitute either of both of being entitled to the Rights and Privileges of a citizen or allegiance, obedience or adherence to foreign power and thus falling under 44i.

    Or in short, 44i prevents dual parliamentarians of Australia and the UK. Not that voters would stand for it if it was allowed.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 11 of 12
1 … 10 11 12