Essential Research: 55-45 to Labor

Essential defies the weekend narrative by recording a move to Labor, and finds Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop in a statistical dead heat for preferred Liberal leader.

After a weekend of relatively good electoral and polling news for the government, Essential Research records Labor’s two-party lead out from 54-46 to 55-45. A preferred Liberal leader question has Malcolm Turnbull down four since July to 21%, Julie Bishop down one to 19% and Tony Abbott unchanged on 10%. More detail on both of these will be available when Essential Research publishes its full results later today. On the question of a potential leadership change, 18% said it would make them more likely to vote Coalition, compared with 13% for less likely and 54% for no difference.

The poll also found 38% wanted the Liberals and Nationals to continue working together, compared with 34% who thought they should be independent – with the former option heavily favoured by Coalition voters. Fifty-four per cent said they favoured majority government, with 25% preferring minor parties holding the balance of power. Fifty-one per cent felt politicians should be forced to resign from parliament if they resigned from their party, with only 24% holding the opposite view.

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.

2,205 comments on “Essential Research: 55-45 to Labor”

Comments Page 43 of 45
1 … 42 43 44 45

  2. I’m betting that Turnbull will invite himself to be star attraction at the first same sex wedding. He’ll tell the world that this would have never been possible without his heroic efforts.

  4. Now that the same-sex marriage ‘debate’ is over, will ABC news readers be allowed to finally refer to it as marriage equality?

  5. Malcolm doesn’t understand that the fundamental difference between business and politics is that, in business, after you’ve burned a mark you can always move on to a new mark. In politics, you can’t. The voters always remain the same and they store up knowledge about you. It’s taken them a lot longer than they should have, but they are now realising what a nasty, devious piece of shit he is. Flat-out scum on a scale this country has never seen in the Lodge.

  6. It is unfortunate that spineless Turnbull with his support of amendments, and his awful government have been in ‘control’ of the parliament for this legislation. But as you all know, you take the political wins where they arise.

  9. poroti

    Incompetence is fine.
    Realistically, you’d think the relevant premier or PM could at least determine how much of the stuff-up was something the minister should have done something about, foreseen or put something in place to prevent or minimise but it seems now that ministers aren’t responsible for their department’s running; they are only responsible for their own personal conduct.

  12. Confessions:

    I bet it’s pissing off Abetz, Abbott, Andrews, Barnaby and co when they hear him say things like how proud he is that it was Liberal National govt that legislated for SSM though!

    It could have been seen as being a Labor achievement if only they hadn’t been so stupid regarding this issue when they were last in government… and for what in the end? And yes, I know, they may not have had the numbers to pass it in the 2010-13 term, anyway.

  13. “I couldn’t bring myself to watch Brian on 7:30. Did anyone see it? Did he get interrupted or asked any tough questions?”

    Is the Pope a Presbyterian?

  14. Bemused Comrade

    Yes, the Australian Parliament can change previous law developed by the HC. Once again your view is the correct view.

    In any conflict between statutory law and case law (ie common law, or “court made” law) the statutory law prevails.

    This is on the provisos that the statute does not offend any provision of the Constitution, and that the parliament has the power to make that law. So federally, the parliament can make any law pertaining to the heads of power listed in the many subsections of s51 and such a law may well override earlier decisions of the HC.

    Take Family Law. When the Family Law Act was enacted in ’75 its provisions became the law regardless of pre-existing case law, including case law decided by the HC. So regarding the case law that existed about divorce before then, it was simply thrown in the garbage and replaced by the one provision relating to the marriage being broken for 12 months. No more adultery; no more examination of bedsheets……

    ” Statutory Law can override Common Law. Where an Act of Parliament is passed that contradicts Common Law, the Common Law will no longer be valid and the courts must follow the Act. Judges may not rule against Statutory Law to develop new precedents either; however they do have the power to interpret Statutory Law, and these interpretations may become precedents.”

    https://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/toolbox/legal/OFFICE/T00/T00_A/t0_lesy.html

    This might happen soon. In Gallagher’s citizenship case the HC will decide whether or not her renunciation by the date of nominations was timely. Let’s say it does. (Note that the s 44 does not refer to “date of nominations”.) For some reason or other the parliament could disagree that the date of nominations should be THE date, and could legislate that the date before the election is THE relevant date. Such cases from then on would be judged by the HC in terms of that legislation.

    It is worth noting that the Constitution does not purport to create “everyday” laws. It only defines ie states the law as to how the “system” works. The HC safeguards that, and additionally spends much time interpreting the precise meanings of statutes, including the statute that we call “the constitution”.

  15. In recent weeks the High Court has knocked on the head two Federal Court decisions interpreting the Fair Work Act in favour of unions:

    (a) SDA v Aldi
    (b) AWU v ESSO

  16. Blood sucking leeches-R-Us

    .
    Andrew Leigh‏Verified account
    @ALeighMP

    At 5pm, just before the marriage equality vote, the Turnbull Government slipped out data showing that 1 in 3 big companies pay zero tax. #auspol
    3:37 PM – Dec 7, 2017 · Capital Hill, Canberra
    https://twitter.com/ALeighMP/status/938673721702625280/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbxmastragics.com%2F2017%2F11%2F25%2Fqld-election-2017%2F
    It is going to be ugly when the sans culottes finally take to the barricades.
    .
    “Bankrupt Toys “R” Us wins OK to pay $16 million in executive bonuses”
    http://cw39.com/2017/12/06/bankrupt-toys-r-us-wins-ok-to-pay-16-million-in-executive-bonuses/

  17. psyclaw

    Except that wasn’t bemused’s argument. He is arguing that, once the High Court has ruled on a constitutional matter, Parliament can legislate to change that.

    Of course Parliament can change elements which are not set Constitutionally, such as nomination dates.

    If you agree with bemused, you should be able to explain why, despite knowing about the problems caused by S44 since Sykes v Cleary, no government has ever brought in legislation to over rule it, despite several parliamentary inquiries recommending change (via referendum, because apparently they didn’t think that parliament had the power to do anything). And why the government is not talking about bringing in legislation now to protect its members.

  19. Psyclaw @ #2113 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 9:05 pm

    Bemused Comrade

    Yes, the Australian Parliament can change previous law developed by the HC. Once again your view is the correct view.

    In any conflict between statutory law and case law (ie common law, or “court made” law) the statutory law prevails.

    This is on the provisos that the statute does not offend any provision of the Constitution, and that the parliament has the power to make that law. So federally, the parliament can make any law pertaining to the heads of power listed in the many subsections of s51 and such a law may well override earlier decisions of the HC.

    Take Family Law. When the Family Law Act was enacted in ’75 its provisions became the law regardless of pre-existing case law, including case law decided by the HC. So regarding the case law that existed about divorce before then, it was simply thrown in the garbage and replaced by the one provision relating to the marriage being broken for 12 months. No more adultery; no more examination of bedsheets……

    ” Statutory Law can override Common Law. Where an Act of Parliament is passed that contradicts Common Law, the Common Law will no longer be valid and the courts must follow the Act. Judges may not rule against Statutory Law to develop new precedents either; however they do have the power to interpret Statutory Law, and these interpretations may become precedents.”

    https://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/toolbox/legal/OFFICE/T00/T00_A/t0_lesy.html

    This might happen soon. In Gallagher’s citizenship case the HC will decide whether or not her renunciation by the date of nominations was timely. Let’s say it does. (Note that the s 44 does not refer to “date of nominations”.) For some reason or other the parliament could disagree that the date of nominations should be THE date, and could legislate that the date before the election is THE relevant date. Such cases from then on would be judged by the HC in terms of that legislation.

    It is worth noting that the Constitution does not purport to create “everyday” laws. It only defines ie states the law as to how the “system” works. The HC safeguards that, and additionally spends much time interpreting the precise meanings of statutes, including the statute that we call “the constitution”.

    This is disturbing in that it suggests I may have absorbed some of the modes of thinking of lawyers! 😛

    Did you see Jackol’s comment and my response?

    Have you managed to untangle all the twists and turns by zoomster?

  22. zoomster @ #2116 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 9:11 pm

    psyclaw

    Except that wasn’t bemused’s argument. He is arguing that, once the High Court has ruled on a constitutional matter, Parliament can legislate to change that.

    Of course Parliament can change elements which are not set Constitutionally, such as nomination dates.

    If you agree with bemused, you should be able to explain why, despite knowing about the problems caused by S44 since Sykes v Cleary, no government has ever brought in legislation to over rule it, despite several parliamentary inquiries recommending change (via referendum, because apparently they didn’t think that parliament had the power to do anything). And why the government is not talking about bringing in legislation now to protect its members.

    Once again zoomster is up to her deceptions.

  23. Jackol

    “When the HC rules on Constitutional matters it sets a precedent, and that precedent is as much a part of the Constitution as the words written in the Constitution.”

    Not so Jackol. The HC is able to override its own precedents, which are in no way set in stone to the depth the Constitution is.

    What the HC says about citizenship additional to the actual words of s44, do not become part of the Constitution, and can be changed by the parliament.

    For example the parliament could state as law that “any candidate who writes a letter stating XYZ and sends it by registered mail to the appropriate embassy is deemed to have renounced citizenship of that country”, thereby overriding all that the HC has recently held about “reasonable steps” to renounce.

  25. poroti says:
    Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:01 pm
    don

    BK being a Crow Eater means the ‘dropped pie’ might be a pie floater

    Even better!

    The image is not one to linger over, though!

  26. No, bemused, I have repeatedly quoted your own words to show that what you have been asking is whether, once the High Court has interpreted the Constitution a certain way, Parliament can over ride it.

    It is, of course, possible that you don’t understand what your words actually meant.

  28. zoomster @ #2125 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 9:18 pm

    No, bemused, I have repeatedly quoted your own words to show that what you have been asking is whether, once the High Court has interpreted the Constitution a certain way, Parliament can over ride it.

    It is, of course, possible that you don’t understand what your words actually meant.

    Sigh!
    Read what Psyclaw has written and in which he agrees with me. But he puts it better.
    And stop verbaling me.

  29. Abbott not even voting is more cowardice. Didn’t he want the stupid postal survey, campaigning for the No vote from the get-go? And didn’t his electorate return a 70+% Yes vote? And still he couldn’t find it in him to pony up to put his money where his very loud mouth is.

  31. bemused

    Ah, so you’re admitting that you didn’t express yourself clearly. How can you blame people for misunderstanding you in that case?

    I agree with what psyclaw is saying (to an extent: parliaments have been trying to find ways to deal with issues around S44 for years, ever since Sykes v Cleary, but still come back to needing to have a referendum), but I still don’t think it’s what you’ve been saying.

    I’m willing to accept that it’s because you expressed yourself poorly.

  32. Mr Newbie @9:03PM: It could have been seen as being a Labor achievement if only they hadn’t been so stupid regarding this issue when they were last in government…

    Maybe. We will never know, at least in this timeline.

    Before about 2010, it wasn’t an issue for most voters, although the LGBTI community and groups like GetUp had been campaigning in the background for maybe a decade or more, building a consensus.

    I always thought that Julia Gillard, during 2010-13, had so much crap to put up with, was fighting wars on so many fronts, with the Opposition and with her own side, that she just wasn’t prepared to take on another battle at that stage. And who could blame her? An Abbott-Murdoch Opposition plus elements of Labor attacking Marriage Equality would have been ugly.

    But by 2015 there was a clear consensus. Turnbull could simply have stuck to his guns, not handed over the reins to his party’s Far Right wing. Maybe it would have delayed his ascension by a few Newspolls. But he did, and the rest is history.

  33. zoomster @ #2130 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 9:28 pm

    bemused

    Ah, so you’re admitting that you didn’t express yourself clearly. How can you blame people for misunderstanding you in that case?

    I agree with what psyclaw is saying (to an extent: parliaments have been trying to find ways to deal with issues around S44 for years, ever since Sykes v Cleary, but still come back to needing to have a referendum), but I still don’t think it’s what you’ve been saying.

    I’m willing to accept that it’s because you expressed yourself poorly.

    Curious that, because Psyclaw seems to agree with me!
    I express myself clearly to all but those who wilfully misunderstand.

  34. psyclaw –

    Not so Jackol. The HC is able to override its own precedents, which are in no way set in stone to the depth the Constitution is.

    Undoubtedly a later HC can revisit a previous HC decision, although they would be very reluctant to directly contradict an earlier decision, so in that respect of course precedent is “weaker” than the words in the Constitution. But that’s not what we’ve been talking about. We were talking about the power of Federal Parliament to override the HC where the HC has ruled on a Constitutional question and added precedent.

    For example the parliament could state as law that “any candidate who writes a letter stating XYZ and sends it by registered mail to the appropriate embassy is deemed to have renounced citizenship of that country”, thereby overriding all that the HC has recently held about “reasonable steps” to renounce.

    That’s a poor example because I don’t think the HC would ever accept that the Australian parliament can rule on what constitutes being a citizen of another country (and that was, as mentioned here previously, a crucial question in Sykes v Cleary). It (a) doesn’t make sense, and (b) is certainly not a power of Federal parliament (for obvious reasons).

  35. The anti ME mob will no doubt have their lawyers look at today’s legislation with a view to a HC challenge.

    But their next big thing will be Phillip Ruddock’s religion enquiry.

    Shelton and co and their MP followers will lobby hard to get something in his recommendations that winds back the ME provisions passed today.

    But in an ideal world we will have a Labor government some time next year and Ruddock’s report will end up where it will probably belong … In the bin.

  36. “Stupid” or not, the ALP decided on a conscience vote in that term, one step towards their current policy in favour.

    And there was a conscience vote held in that term…

  37. Perhaps Tim Nicholls was applying quantum mechanics to election results. If you don’t look at the results, the election is simultaneously won and lost. It is only when you look at the results that the election is either won or lost.

  40. Nicholas @ #2136 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 9:33 pm

    Perhaps Tim Nicholls was applying quantum mechanics to election results. If you don’t look at the results, the election is simultaneously won and lost. It is only when you look at the results that the election is either won or lost.

    Nicholas @ #2136 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 9:33 pm

    Perhaps Tim Nicholls was applying quantum mechanics to election results. If you don’t look at the results, the election is simultaneously won and lost. It is only when you look at the results that the election is either won or lost.

    Nicholls is hanging on because he is wheeling and dealing in the background.

  42. Nicholas
    Strictly speaking, that is only the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
    Nicholls might be in the multiverse interpretation model and he won in his universe.

  45. This from a Premier who is introducing legislation to force interstate people to give evidence at his Water RC.

    “Mr Weatherill said. SA ministers would not front a Senate inquiry into the crisis, due to report just before the state election, because it was “a stitch-up for political purposes,” he said.”

    You have to admire his chutzpah.

Comments Page 43 of 45
1 … 42 43 44 45

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *