Newspoll steady at 53-47 to Labor. Macron’s party wins French lower house elections


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1790, has Labor leading by 53-47, unchanged since the last Newspoll, three weeks ago. Primary votes are 37% Labor (up 1), 36% Coalition (steady), 11% One Nation (up 2) and 9% Greens (down 1).

32% were satisfied with Turnbull’s performance (down 3), and 55% were dissatisfied (up 1), for a net approval of -23. After creeping above a net -20 rating in the last Newspoll, Turnbull has slid back. Shorten’s net approval was also -23, down three points.

The 2-point lift in One Nation support is probably due to the many headlines about terrorism in the last few weeks. While there has been bad publicity about One Nation’s expenses, One Nation voters are likely to regard this as a media conspiracy to “get” One Nation, and be undeterred.

Since Donald Trump’s election, far right parties in Europe, and at the WA election, have slumped in the closing weeks of election campaigns, and then underperformed their polls on election day. There is no reason to think that a similar pattern will not apply at the next Federal election.

Some have argued that the UK election resembles the Australian 2016 election. As Kevin Bonham says, this is not true. The UK election was held three years early, while the Australian election was held two months early. Furthermore, the Australian election was held early in an attempt to make the Senate more compliant, while the UK election was held solely to attempt to increase the Conservatives’ Commons majority, and this was a dismal failure.

UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn succeeded by enthusing the youth vote. With compulsory voting in Australia and full preferential voting required, parties do not need to encourage their supporters to vote. While many on the left would prefer Tanya Plibersek as Labor leader, they will still preference a Labor party led by Shorten higher than the Coalition.

Similarly, many on the right would prefer a PM more right-wing than Turnbull, but they will still prefer the Coalition to Labor.

UK election aftermath

At the UK general election held on 8 June, the Conservatives lost their majority, winning 318 of the 650 seats, 8 short of an outright majority. The Northern Ireland (NI) Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) won 10 seats. As the DUP is very socially conservative and Corbyn has connections to the IRA, they will support the Conservatives.

All other parties represented at Westminster are to the left of the Conservatives. With the Speaker, John Bercow, omitted from the Conservative total, the Conservatives and DUP would have a wafer-thin majority of 327-322.

However Sinn Féin, which won seven seats in NI, will not take its Westminster seats, owing to historical opposition to British rule of NI. Unless this policy changes, the Conservatives and DUP will have a more comfortable 327-315 majority.

Owing to her loss of authority, PM Theresa May’s YouGov ratings have slumped since the election, while Corbyn’s have surged. This graph shows the net favourable ratings of May, Corbyn, the Conservaitves and Labour before the election campaign, near the end of the campaign, and now.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

According to YouGov, just 8% had a favourable opinion of the DUP, while 48% had an unfavourable opinion. Association with the DUP could taint the Conservative brand.

Division within the Conservatives is likely over Brexit. Had the Conservatives won the expected thumping majority, May would have a mandate for a “hard” Brexit. As it is, Conservatives who favour a “soft” Brexit are pushing back.

Macron’s party easily wins French lower house elections

Elections for the French lower house were completed in yesterday’s second round vote. President Emmanuel Macron’s new party, La République En Marche! (REM), won 308 of the 577 seats, and its ally, the Democratic Movement, won another 42 seats. The centre right parties won 137 seats, the centre left 44, the hard left Unsubmissive France 17, the Communists 10 and the far right National Front 8. Turnout was just 42.6% of registered voters, and only 38.4% cast a valid vote.

At the 2012 lower house elections, the centre left had won 331 of the 577 seats, the centre right 229, the Left Front 10, the National Front and the Democratic Movement 2 each. In 2017, Macron’s centrist movement made huge gains at the expense of both the right and left, with far right and left parties also gaining seats.

In the first round held on 11 June, the REM and Democratic Movement won 32.3% of the vote, the centre right 21.6%, the centre left 9.5%, the National Front 13.2%, Unsubmissive France 11.0% and the Greens 4.3%. Unless a candidate won a first round vote majority, the top two candidates in each seat proceeded to the second round.

The ConversationCandidates other than the top two who received at least 12.5% of registered voters also qualified for the second round. However, turnout of only 48.7% meant that just one seat was contested by more than two candidates in the second round.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Turnbull’s Trump riff won’t please The Donald but it could be a hit at home



File 20170616 1205 84pde2
Malcolm Turnbull’s Midwinter Ball speech parodying Donald Trump has received international attention.
Lukas Coch/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

We can presume that even without the assistance of Nine’s Laurie Oakes, Washington officialdom would have heard soon enough about Malcolm Turnbull’s riff on Donald Trump at Wednesday’s Midwinter Ball.

After all, among the hundreds of guests in Parliament’s Great Hall was James Carouso, the US embassy’s charge d’affaires. Any diplomat doing their job properly would inform their government about a speech mentioning their country’s leader, regardless of it being “off the record”.

But there’s a world of difference between a discreet report filtered through the channels of bureaucrats and advisers (who may or may not tell the president) and a blaze of publicity in the media.

Trump is not known for humour when the joke’s on him, and Turnbull’s hilarious send-up is likely to go down poorly with him. Whether this matters remains to be seen.

It was a great speech; I’ll leave readers to hunt for the now readily available detail, as I was present on the off-the-record occasion. It was Malcolm unplugged in a witty, clever way, self-deprecating even when he was sending up Trump.

These ball nights see an informal contest between the prime minister of the day and the opposition leader as to who can perform best. The chatter among guests was that Turnbull’s speech clearly beat that of Bill Shorten.

But, as things turned out, it was a risk-laden exercise.

The leaders prepare their speeches for this night, especially because they have to strike a humorous tone and being seriously funny – as distinct from inserting the odd joke – is not their usual stock in trade.

So it is surprising that someone around Turnbull, if not Turnbull himself, didn’t hear a warning bell.

It is not for lack of precedent. There was that most spectacular “leak” from the press gallery’s 1990 dinner when treasurer Paul Keating’s “Placedo Domingo” speech, seen as an attack on prime minister Bob Hawke, which caused a crisis between the two.

This week’s incident has sparked questions and debate about journalists’ ethics and practices.

Should Oakes have put the speech to air? In my opinion, he had absolutely every right to do so – he wasn’t there and so had not consented to the “off-the-record” terms.

Is the leaker, whoever it was, to be condemned? Whether you think they should be, leaks happen. We journalists encourage them, so we shouldn’t be hypocritical about this one.

We should, incidentally, respond with a horse laugh to the attempt by Mathias Cormann to suggest the leak might be Shorten’s fault. That was quickly denied by Oakes.

Should the ball be off the record anyway? Surely this is an absurdity, given the number of people present, including lobbyists, business figures, politicians, staffers and diplomats, as well as journalists.

Obviously leaders would be blander if they were talking on the record. This is not a credible reason, however, for drawing a curtain over what is effectively a public dinner. It simply looks like excessively “insider” behaviour between media and politicians.

But the debate about ethics is less important at the moment than the consideration of possible consequences of Turnbull’s speech.

The latest incident comes against the background of the up-and-down start to the Turnbull-Trump relationship.

There was the fraught phone call early this year in which Trump denounced the deal the Obama administration did for the US to take some refugees from Manus Island and Nauru. At the other extreme came the over-the-top love-in during their press conference in New York when Turnbull, to his discredit, agreed with Trump that the account of the phone call had been fake news.

The government is pushing the point that Turnbull’s Trump references were all just a bit of fun, showing another side of him. The speech was “affectionately light-hearted”, Turnbull has said.

The US embassy played down the affair, saying “we take this with the good humour that was intended”, as did Australia’s ambassador in Washington, Joe Hockey, who quipped: “The administration hasn’t rung us up and I haven’t been hauled into the White House and sent back to Australia so far as I’m aware.”

But in view of the background and Trump’s prickly nature, the government will be holding its breath.

Trump might have so much on his plate that he doesn’t give Turnbull a second thought.

But if he got hissy, what is the worst he could do? The only immediate serious thing one can think of would be to go even more slowly on the refugee deal, already proceeding at a snail’s pace. That indeed would be a high price to pay for a joke or three.

He could be more difficult in future interactions with Turnbull. After Kevin Rudd leaked his disparaging remarks about George W Bush following a phone conversation the two had about the G20, their relationship became particularly frosty.

But the affair should be kept in perspective. Sometimes the Australian and US leaders of the day are joined at the hip – Lyndon Johnson and Harold Holt, John Howard and Bush. Historically, that can be seen as a good or a bad thing. Sometimes relations are tense – Gough Whitlam and Richard Nixon, Rudd and Bush after the G20 affair.

But as is often pointed out, the Australian-American relationship is based on shared interests. Thus Australia failing to forewarn the Americans that it was leasing the Port of Darwin to the Chinese was a much more serious offence than a bit of close-to-the-bone humour.

And, as a story in the Washington Post that reported Turnbull’s speech illustrated, when it comes to Trump Turnbull isn’t on his lonesome. It noted Trump has become “the butt of jokes in capitals around the world”.

The Conversation“Fellow world leaders appear emboldened to poke fun at him as a way to bolster their political standing,” the story said. Now that would be an upside for Turnbull.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Turnbull government must find a way to rid Australia of foreign donations



File 20170616 26433 riow0n
Attorney-General George Brandis (left) and Special Minister of State Scott Ryan need to work together to reform foreign donations laws.
AAP/Dan Peled

Tony Walker, La Trobe University

Let’s start at the beginning on the vexed issue of foreign donations for political parties and candidates in an environment in which globalisation is adding to challenges in combating foreign interference in electoral processes.

Back in 1918, when the Commonwealth Electoral Act was drafted, no distinction was made between donors from Australia or overseas, or (effectively) between donors who were Australian citizens, non-citizens, or organisations.

In the last year of the 1914-18 war not much thought, if any, was given to the possibility that foreign interests would interfere with the Australian electoral process, or would have an interest in doing so.

But now, in an environment in which commercial and political interests leapfrog national boundaries in ways that must have seemed a remote possibility when the 1918 Commonwealth Electoral Act was drafted, it is time to subject the act to a comprehensive revision.

The aim of this exercise should be to exclude foreign donations. Those bans should extend to organisations engaged in the political process as lobby groups for one side or the other.

It would make little sense for bans to be applied to political parties themselves without also extending such bans to unions and business lobbyists.

As much as anything, such a provision would act as a deterrent to those who might seek to utilise foreign funds improperly.

Government ministers tell you it will be difficult to frame legislation that would stop all foreign funding.

What about grey areas, they ask, such as contributions by companies whose main business is in Australia, but whose headquarters is located elsewhere?

The London-headquartered Rio Tinto is one such example.

These are difficult issues and need to be worked through. There is no simple remedy.

Of course, one option would be to make political campaigns fully publicly-funded, thus obviating the need for private fundraising. But that arrangement potentially discriminates against new entrants who may not qualify for such public funding.

The Australian model in which funding is made available on the basis of past performance has merit. But its weakness is that it advantages the major parties disproportionately.

Then there is the whole murky area of funding for organisations like the conservative Institute of Public Affairs, or groups on the left, like GetUp, which supports progressive causes.

Under present circumstances, organisations like the IPA are not obliged to disclose their sources of funding. Since they are involved in the political process, these lobby groups should be required to open their books.

In the United States, funding for similar organisations is transparent, for the very good reason that just as sunlight is the best disinfectant so is transparency in ascertaining what might motivate groups to adopt certain positions.

The IPA, for example, opposed plain packaging for tobacco products on what it insisted were libertarian grounds. It would have been useful, however, to be apprised of whether the tobacco industry contributes funds to that organisation.

Lobby groups should be obliged to place sources of funding on the public register, especially since many of these organisations derive tax benefits from their status as not-for-profit organisations.

The whole question of “money talks” politics has come into focus in the past week or so with revelations in a Fairfax Media/ABC investigation of money being splashed around political parties by Chinese-born billionaires, one of whom is not an Australian citizen.

Clearly, the aim of these contributions has been to influence Australian politicians in a way that would make them more sympathetic to China’s aspirations.

Indeed, in one case, funding that had been promised to Labor was withheld after one of its spokesmen advanced a point of view contrary to China’s interests.

This was a clear example of money being used – or the threat of funds being withheld – for political purposes. It should be regarded as distasteful, and, potentially intimidatory.

If there is a rule of thumb in politics, it is that money does not bring purity, rather the reverse.

Special Minister of State Scott Ryan, who has responsibility for an overhaul of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it relates to political donations, acknowledges that grey areas exist that will be difficult to legislate.

In framing the required legislation, Ryan might refer to the Political Finance Database of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, an intergovernmental organisation that supports sustainable democracy worldwide.

The IDEA has a formula that would be helpful in establishing exactly what constitutes a “foreign interest”.

It defines such interests as entities that:

contribute directly or indirectly [and who are] governments, corporations, organisations or individuals who are not citizens; that do not reside in the country or have a large share of foreign ownership.

In the case of the latter provision, framing regulations to stop foreign donations would present challenges. Rio Tinto is just one example of companies with large stakes in Australia, but domiciled overseas.

Perhaps the most compelling argument for an Australian ban on political donations is that, apart from New Zealand, Australia is the only English-speaking democracy to permit such donations.

In New Zealand, overseas donations are capped at $NZ1,500.

In Australia no such cap applies.

However, donations to parties and candidates above $13,200 require the name and address of donor to be supplied. This information must be made available at the end of each financial year.

One reform Ryan might consider is to oblige disclosure more quickly. In last year’s federal election, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull made a very significant personal financial contribution to the Liberal Party campaign. But under law, this donation did not need to be disclosed in a timely manner.

Turnbull did reveal his contribution – after the election and only under media pressure.

In the case of that contribution it could be argued that wealth in Turnbull’s case enabled him to fund a campaign that gave him an advantage over his opponents.

On the other hand, the conservative side of politics would say that Labor has an inbuilt funding advantage because it can rely on the support of the union movement.

In recent years, several attempts have been made to clean up what is clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

In 2010, the Labor government introduced the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures Bill) that would have banned donations of “foreign property”.

The bill passed the House of Representatives, but was not proceeded with in the Senate and lapsed at the end of the 43rd parliament.

Labor and the Coalition toyed with the introduction of a donation and disclosure reform bill in 2013, but nothing came of these efforts.

In this latest 45th parliament the Greens have restored their own Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill that bans donations of foreign property. This version lapsed at the dissolution of the 44th Parliament.

Now is the time for this whole issue to be re-visited.

The ConversationRyan, in conjunction with Attorney-General George Brandis, needs to come up with a bill that seeks to forestall the possibility of candidates and parties being bought and sold in a monied environment that is infinitely more susceptible to influence peddling by foreign interests than it was a century ago.

Tony Walker, Adjunct Professor, School of Communications, La Trobe University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Turnbull and Shorten urge need to curb terrorists’ opportunities on the internet



File 20170612 10193 iopfr7
Both the government and the opposition will warn about terrorists exploiting cyberspace.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten will both home in on the importance of tackling cyber issues as part of the fight against terrorism, in parliamentary speeches on Tuesday.

In a security update on the threats facing Australia at home and abroad, Turnbull will say that an “online civil society is as achievable as an offline one”.

“The privacy and security of a terrorist can never be more important than public safety,” he says in notes released ahead of the address.

“The rights and protections of the vast overwhelming majority of Australians must outweigh the rights of those who will do them harm.

“That is truly what balancing the priority of community safety with individual liberties and our way of life is about.”

The government would not take an “if it ain’t broke we won’t fix it” mentality, Turnbull says – rather, Australia is at the forefront of efforts to address future threats.

Attorney-General George Brandis will visit Canada this month to meet his Five Eyes security counterparts – the others are from Britain, the US, New Zealand as well as Canada – and discuss what more can be done by likeminded nations and with the communications and technology industry “to ensure terrorists and organised criminals are not able to operate with impunity within ungoverned digital spaces online”.

Shorten, in his address (an extract of which has been released), will say: “We need to recognise this is a 21st-century conflict – being fought online as well as in the streets. Terrorists are using sophisticated online strategies as well as crude weapons of violence.”

He says this is where the private sector has a responsibility.

“For a long time Daesh has used the internet as an instrument of radicalisation. Through Twitter and Facebook they boast of a propaganda arm that can reach into every home in the world: spreading hate, recruiting followers and encouraging imitators.

“And with encryption technology like Whatsapp and Telegram they can securely communicate not just a message of violence – but instructions in how to carry it out.”

Shorten will acknowledge many internet providers and social media platforms such as Facebook work hard to detect and remove offensive content, namely child pornography and other forms of violent crime.

“But we need more – and these companies have the resources and the capacity to do more.

“As good corporate citizens and responsible members of democratic nations, I’m confident these tech companies will seek to do everything they can to assist the fight against terror.

“We must always be mindful of the rule of the law and the proper protections of our citizens – but we must be equally focused on adapting to new mediums and new technologies to detect and prevent new threats,” Shorten says.

The security focus in parliament comes after last week’s attack in Melbourne, events in Britain, and Friday’s decision by the Council of Australian Governments that there should be a presumption against parole and bail for people who have had any involvement with terrorism.

The ConversationThe government this week will introduce its tough new provisions governing visa and citizenship requirements. They include giving Immigration Minister Peter Dutton power to overrule Administrative Appeal Tribunal decisions on citizenship. Dutton said this would align citizenship provisions with the power he already has in relation to visas. There would still be the right to appeal to the Federal Court. Labor will announce its attitude when it sees the legislation.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/icjdu-6b9a25?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Malcolm Turnbull seeks legal advice on Hanson’s staffer Ashby


File 20170522 25041 vffbz8
One Nation is in hot water over the leak of a secret recording that reveals James Ashby suggesting a plan to scam public funds.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Malcolm Turnbull has asked the Australian Federal Police commissioner, the attorney-general and the justice minister for advice about the revelation that Pauline Hanson’s key adviser, James Ashby, floated the idea of One Nation scamming public funds. The Conversation

Ashby suggested at a meeting last year that a way One Nation could make money at taxpayer expense in the coming Queensland election was to inflate receipts presented to electoral authorities.

The party did not pursue the idea, but its surfacing – via a recording of the meeting – is causing serious fallout for Ashby and for Hanson, who was present at the meeting.

Labor has written to the Queensland electoral commissioner and the Queensland police commissioner asking them to investigate.

In the recording, Ashby said: “There is an opportunity for us to make some money out of this, if we play it smart. Now I know they say you can’t make money out of state elections, but you can.”

Outlining the idea at the meeting, Ashby said: “I’ll deny I ever said this but what stops us from getting a middle man or gracing – I’m happy to grace in cash and double the price of whatever it is.”

The party would say to candidates that it would fund 50% of a package, he said. The package might be A$5,000, with the candidate told they were going to pay $2,500 and party would pay the other $2,500.

“The other $2,500 is profit. It’s the fat,” Ashby told the meeting. “When you lodge the receipt at the full price with the Electoral Commission of Queensland you get back the full amount that’s been issued to you as an invoice.”

At an extraordinary joint news conference with Hanson on Monday, Ashby said the revelation was “embarrassing”, adding that it was a “poor choice of words on my behalf”.

He complained that “these were secretly recorded conversations in what we thought was an environment where we could safely put any idea on the table and it wouldn’t go any further”.

“We’ve never implemented this idea that was put forward and it’s regretful that obviously a poor choice of words on my behalf had to be aired in such a public manner,” he said.

Hanson told the news conference: “Don’t forget I was at the meeting as well. You do not have the full recording of that meeting, so you have no idea what was said at the rest of the meeting. We knocked it on the head at the meeting. It didn’t go ahead – that’s why. It was an issue that was raised and it was knocked on the head there and then.”

In comments later, Ashby said he had felt it necessary to come forward to deal with the story – he cast Hanson as being at the news conference to support him. “At times I’m going to have to come forward and defend myself”, he said.

He said political parties were run like businesses, but formerly One Nation had been run in a dismal fashion.

His proposal had been a silly idea, he said. Amid suggestions there was more of the tape to come out, he said could not remember what else he had said at the meeting.

Crossbench senator Derryn Hinch said Ashby had committed a sackable offence but Hanson “won’t sack him”.

In parliament, Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus quizzed Turnbull about the allegations One Nation had conspired to defraud Queensland electoral authorities.

Dreyfus asked whether Turnbull had referred this and previous allegations about One Nation to the Australian Federal Police to investigate whether any Commonwealth laws had been broken, including whether any similar fraud had been perpetrated against the Commonwealth.

He also asked whether the government would be reviewing payments made to Coastal Signs and Printing – Ashby’s Sunshine Coast-based business – to make sure there hadn’t been inflated receipts.

Turnbull said the question raised “some serious matters” and he would be getting advice.

The government is somewhat conflicted over Ashby. It needs One Nation’s Senate votes for legislation opposed by Labor and the Greens – Ashby is Hanson’s right-hand man and arguably the party would be less stable without him. But anything that discredits Ashby and One Nation is useful ahead of the Queensland election.

Ashby is a divisive figure within One Nation, and bitterly attacked by some ex-members.

He has been the centre of controversy over the contested funding for a plane used to ferry Hanson around. He says he purchased the aircraft and it was owned by his business.

A former Queensland One Nation candidate, Diane Happ, who had a row with the party over the cost of campaign material, told the ABC on Monday that Ashby was “a viper, he’s a snake, he’s nasty stuff”.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Coalition fails to get post-budget boost predicted by commentariat


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

After the release of the Federal budget on Tuesday night, much of the political commentariat thought that the budget would be popular, and predicted a lift for the Coalition in the post-budget polls. Graham Richardson in The Australian said the government would “no doubt get a sugar hit from the budget”. The Conversation

All the regular post-budget polls are instead at least 53-47 to Labor, with little change apparent from the pre-budget situation. In Newspoll Labor gained a point, while in Ipsos the Coalition gained two points, leading to different commentary from Fairfax, which sponsors Ipsos, than The Australian, which sponsors Newspoll.

The last Ipsos was 55-45 to Labor in late March; this seemed an outlier at the time. The last Newspoll was 52-48 to Labor three weeks ago, and was probably influenced by the announcements on the citizenship test and 457 visas.

Here is the post-budget poll table. Two separate ReachTEL polls were conducted on 11 May, one for Sky News and one for Channel 7. They are the first public ReachTEL Federal polls since before the 2016 election. Only half of the Essential sample is post-budget, though this week’s additional questions are based on the post-budget sample.

post budget.

The Sky News ReachTEL was reported as 53-47 to Labor, and the Channel 7 ReachTEL as 54-46. However, both these results were based on respondent allocated preferences. To match polls that only give the previous election preferences, I am using Kevin Bonham’s calculated two party vote from the decimal primaries of both ReachTELs. Since the rise of One Nation, ReachTEL’s state polls have leaned to the Coalition, and this lean appears to be happening federally.

While individual budget measures, such as the bank levy and additional Medicare levy, are popular, the budget as a whole gets only a middling rating on a range of measures. Commentary suggesting that the overall budget would be very popular has been shown to be wrong.

While the budget allocated much spending to health and education, voters trust Labor more on these issues. A government that has tried to cut spending for three years, but suddenly has a poll-driven about-face strains credibility. Labor’s fairness criticisms of the termination of the 2% deficit levy for high-income earners, and the now $65 billion for company tax cuts, are likely to be accepted by a large portion of the population.

Kevin Bonham’s poll aggregate is at 52.7% two party preferred to Labor, a gain for Labor of 0.2 points since last fortnight.

Perceptions of this budget

After each budget, Newspoll asks three questions: whether the budget was good or bad for the economy, good or bad for the voter personally, and whether the opposition would have delivered a better budget.

45% thought they would be worse off and 19% better off, for a net of -26. 36% thought the economy would be better with this budget, and 27% worse, for a net of +9. Compared with previous budgets, neither of these scores are very bad nor very good.

Coalition governments do better than Labor ones on whether the opposition would have delivered a better budget. In this Newspoll, by a 47-33 margin, voters thought Labor would not have delivered a better budget. This 14-point margin is about the same as the last two budgets, but better for Labor than any budget in the Howard era, except the 2007 13-point margin, which came shortly before Rudd ousted Howard at the November 2007 election.

In other Newspoll questions, 45% said they would be prepared to see a reduction in taxpayer funded entitlements to pay down debt, while 41% thought otherwise. By 39-36, voters thought this budget was fairer than others under this government. As one of those budgets was the widely hated 2014 budget, this is not saying much. By 71-19, voters thought the banks would not be justified in passing on costs from the bank levy.

In Ipsos, by 45-44 voters approved of the budget, and by 42-39 they thought it was fair; these measure are much better for the government than following the 2014 budget. 50% thought they would be worse off with the budget, while 20% expected to benefit. By 58-37, voters supported increasing national debt to build infrastructure.

The Sky News ReachTEL found that 52% thought their family would be worse off with this budget, with just 11% for better off. 36% thought the government had done a good or very good job explaining its budget, 37% an average job and 27% poor or very poor. 34% of non-home owners thought the budget made it harder to buy a home, 13% easier, and the rest said there was no change.

The Channel 7 ReachTEL found that the budget was rated average by 38%, poor or very poor by 33% and good or very good by 29%.

In Essential, voters approved of the budget by 41-33, though 29% said it made them less confident in the government’s handling of the economy, with 27% for more confident. On both questions, the strongest disagreement with the budget came from Other voters, not Labor and Greens voters.

Explaining why Shorten did not mention punitive measures against the unemployed in his budget reply speech, a crushing 76-14 supported payment reductions for jobseekers who fail to attend appointments, and 69-22 supported a drug trial for jobseekers. The second airport in Sydney was supported by 54-18.

By 51-27, voters agreed with the statement that the budget was more about improving the government’s popularity than the economy. 56% thought higher income earners should bear a greater share of the cost of funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme, while 27% thought applying the Medicare levy for all taxpayers is the right approach. Scott Morrison was favoured over Chris Bowen as preferred Treasurer by 26-22 with 52% undecided.

There was strong support for the bank levy (68-21 in Newspoll, 62-16 in the Sky News ReachTEL, 60-18 in the Channel 7 ReachTEL, 68-29 in Ipsos and 66-19 in Essential). The additional Medicare levy was also well supported (54-36 in Newspoll, 48-34 in the Sky News ReachTEL, 51-28 in the Channel 7 ReachTEL and 49-39 in Essential).

Primary votes, leaders’ ratings and other polling

Primary votes in Newspoll were 36% Coalition (steady), 36% Labor (up 1), 10% Greens (up 1) and 9% One Nation (down 1). 33% (up 1) were satisfied with Turnbull’s performance and 53% (down 4) were dissatisfied, for a net rating of -20, up five points. Shorten’s net rating was -22, down two points.

In Ipsos, primary votes were 37% Coalition (up 4), 35% Labor (up 1) and 13% Greens (downs 3 from an unrealistic 16%). 45% approved of Turnbull’s performance (up 5) and 44% disapproved (down 4), for a net rating of +1, up nine points. Shorten’s net approval increased a sizable 13 points to -5. Turnbull’s ratings in Ipsos have been much better than in other polls. Ipsos skews to the Greens, but less this time than in their first two polls of the new parliamentary term.

The Sky News ReachTEL had primary votes of 37.8% Coalition, 34.2% Labor, 10.3% Greens and 10.2% One Nation. In the Channel 7 ReachTEL, assuming the 9.2% undecided are excluded, primary votes are 37.1% Coalition, 35.0% Labor and 10.8% for both the Greens and One Nation.

Primary votes in Essential were unchanged on last week at 38% Labor, 37% Coalition, 10% Greens, 6% One Nation and 3% Nick Xenophon Team.

In the Channel 7 ReachTEL, both leaders’ ratings tanked from the final survey prior to the 2016 election. Turnbull’s (total good) minus (total poor) score fell 18 points to -24, his record lowest, just ahead of Tony Abbott’s ratings before Abbott was replaced. Shorten’s rating was down 17 points to -21, his lowest since March 2016.

38% preferred Turnbull as Coalition leader, followed by 29% for Julie Bishop, 17% for Abbott, 11% for Peter Dutton and 6% for Scott Morrison. Among Coalition voters, it was 61% Turnbull, 18% Bishop and 14% Abbott.

For preferred Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek had 31% with Shorten and Anthony Albanese tied on 26%. Labor voters had Shorten leading with 40%, Plibersek on 33% and Albanese on 20%. Plibersek was strongly favoured by the Greens, with 51% support from them.

Turnbull led Shorten as better PM by 47-35 in Ipsos and 44-31 in Newspoll, but only 52-48 in the Channel 7 ReachTEL. ReachTEL uses a forced choice question, and this method usually benefits opposition leaders.

ReachTEL’s respondent allocation problem

As noted at the beginning of this article, ReachTEL’s respondent allocated preferences are over a point more favourable to Labor than using the previous election method. It appears that some of this difference is explained by ReachTEL asking National voters which of Labor or Liberal they prefer.

This is a mistake, as in most cases the Nationals are not opposed by a Liberal, and so their preferences are not distributed. In the few cases where National votes were distributed, 22% leaked to Labor at the 2016 election. Applying this rate to the 3.5% National vote in the Sky News ReachTEL would mean that Coalition leakage would increase Labor’s two party vote by 0.8 points; the actual Coalition leakage is worth only about 0.1 points to Labor.

Ipsos also asked for respondent allocated preferences, and had Labor ahead by 53-47 on this measure, the same as when using the previous election method.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Coalition two-party vote slips in post-budget Newspoll


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The Coalition has slipped further behind in Newspoll, trailing Labor 47-53% in two-party terms, despite a pragmatic budget that moved the government onto ALP ground in a bid to win back voters. The Conversation

Labor slightly widened the gap compared with three weeks ago when it led 52-48%. This makes a dozen Newspolls in a row that have seen the government behind the opposition.

The post-budget Fairfax-Ipsos poll also has Labor ahead 53-47%.

The previous Ipsos poll was in late March, when the ALP led 55-45%.

Both polls show majority support for the budget’s tax increases – the new bank tax and the proposed hike in the Medicare levy. The bank tax was backed by 68% in each poll; the Medicare levy rise was supported by 54% in Newspoll and 61% in Ipsos.

In the Ipsos poll, one in two people said they would be worse off from the budget; only one in five believed they would be better off. In Newspoll 45% thought they would be worse off and 19% said they would be better off. In both polls, Coalition voters were more likely than Labor voters to think they would be better off.

In Ipsos people were evenly split on whether they were satisfied with the budget – 44% were and 43% were not, a net plus one. This is better than the response to last year’s budget (minus seven) but not as good as the reception for the 2015 Hockey budget (plus 17).

Ipsos found 42% thought the budget fair, compared with 39% who did not, a net plus three. Last year’s budget rated a net minus six on fairness. Coalition voters were more likely than Labor voters to rate the budget as fair – 63% to 25%.

Newspoll asked whether it was fairer than previous budgets delivered by this government: 39% thought it was, while 36% did not.

Labor’s primary vote in Newspoll, published in The Australian, is up a point to 36%; the Coalition is static on 36%. The Greens rose a point to 10% and One Nation fell a point to 9%. The poll was taken from Thursday to Sunday.

When budgets do not normally bring a bounce for a government – ministers will argue it will take time for positives to show up in the polls – the result will be a disappointment for Malcolm Turnbull, although his personal ratings have improved.

In Newspoll, his net satisfaction went from minus 25 points to minus 20 points in three weeks, while satisfaction with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten declined from minus 20 to minus 22. Turnbull has also widened his lead as better prime minister from nine to 13 points – he is now ahead 44-31%.

In the Ipsos poll, taken Wednesday to Saturday, Labor’s primary vote is 35%, and the Coalition’s is 37%. The Greens are on 13%. Turnbull’s net approval is plus one, up nine points since March; Bill Shorten’s net approval is minus five, up 13 points since March. Turnbull leads Shorten as preferred prime minister 47-35%

The Ipsos poll found the government’s promised A$18.6 billion boost to spending on schools was supported overwhelmingly – by 86%. Some 58% backed increasing national debt to build infrastructure, but 37% opposed.

Treasurer Scott Morrison on Sunday continued his tough language on the big banks, which are furious about the new tax imposed on them.

When it was put to him that he could not stop them hitting customers with it he said: “In the same way that banks have put up interest rates even when there hasn’t been a move in the Reserve Bank cash rate. I mean, banks will find any way they can to charge their customers more.”

He reiterated that the government would pressure the banks through the regulator not to pass on the tax to customers. “But the best thing you can do is if you are unhappy with how a bank is seeking to fleece you – that’s what they would be doing if they pass this on – go to another bank.”

The tax was just six basis points, he said on the ABC. “Reserve Bank cash rates move by 25 basis points at a time and to suggest that this is the end of financial civilisation as we know it is one of the biggest overreaches in a whinge about a tax I’ve ever seen.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

How the politics of the budget might play out for a government in trouble



File 20170505 21635 1hykoj9
This budget, led by Scott Morrison and Malcolm Turnbull, will form part of the government’s repositioning as an advocate of equal opportunity and fairness.
AAP/Mick Tsikas

Carol Johnson, University of Adelaide

Given months of polls that show Labor ahead and damaging internal disunity, the politics of this budget are extremely tricky for the government to manage. The Conversation

It is not just that Tony Abbott’s sniping is causing political headaches for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Some of the government’s budget problems go back to the 2013 election.

In that campaign, Abbott suggested the budget deficit problems would be easily fixed by simply getting rid of Labor, and the government could somehow do so painlessly without cutting health, education or pensions.

However, as then-treasurer Wayne Swan had noted, Australian budget deficit problems were very complex and included substantial falls in government revenue due to the global financial crisis and the end of the mining boom. They weren’t just due to government spending.

Opponents criticised the size of the Rudd government’s expenditure, including its economic stimulus package designed to counter the GFC. Nonetheless, Kevin Rudd argued that Australian government debt was in fact relatively small compared with many other Western countries in a post-GFC world.

Once he won office, Abbott had to face the difficult realities involved in reducing the deficit. The substantial 2014 budget cuts, including to areas Abbott said would be protected, infuriated many voters and contributed to his poor polls and political demise.

The Abbott government’s woes went beyond the failure to fix a difficult budget situation. Other than attacking Labor, it wasn’t clear what its positive vision for the Australian economy was in terms of how to transition after the mining boom, and how to develop new jobs and new industries at a time of rapid economic and technological change.

Tony Abbott’s sniping continues to cause headaches for Malcolm Turnbull.
AAP/Sam Mooy

Replacing Abbott with Turnbull was meant to provide us with such a positive economic vision. However, Turnbull’s mantra of living in innovative and “exciting times” failed to convince many voters. As one anonymous Liberal MP noted, it actually made some voters highly nervous about what was going to happen to their jobs.

Hence Turnbull turned to promising “jobs and growth” during the 2016 election campaign.

However, the Coalition’s narrow win suggested many voters still weren’t convinced the government knew how to ensure job security and a good standard of living in challenging times. In particular, many voters remained unconvinced that substantial business tax cuts would drive the economic growth and improved government revenues that were promised.

Given current levels of underemployment, unusually low wages growth and with inequality increasing, they had reason to be concerned. There is also international research suggesting that corporate tax cuts don’t have the beneficial results claimed.

Fast forward to the 2017 budget, and the Liberals are desperately trying to develop a more convincing economic narrative around good economic management, nation-building, and fairness.

Despite their attempts to blame past Labor policy and more recent Labor intransigence at passing budget cuts in the Senate, Liberal ministers are still having trouble explaining how government debt has increased from A$270 billion under Labor to some $480 billion under the Coalition.

Fortunately for them, Treasurer Scott Morrison now argues there is “good debt” and “bad debt”. Good debt covers areas such as infrastructure that assists economic growth. Bad debt apparently covers areas such as welfare.

Morrison is partly belatedly accepting advice on infrastructure-funding debt from bodies such as the International Monetary Fund, while trying to argue that the government’s new debt policies will be very different from past Labor economic stimulus ones.

Needless to say, these areas of “good” and “bad” debt aren’t quite as simple to define as Morrison suggests. Furthermore, so called nation-building infrastructure spending is sometimes more electoral pork barrelling than economic necessity. Doubts have already been raised over the economic, rather than political, benefits of a second Sydney airport and inter-capital city rail links.

The NBN: ‘good debt’ or ‘bad debt’?
AAP/Mick Tsikas

Meanwhile, Turnbull struggled to explain whether Labor’s National Broadband Network was good or bad debt in terms of building necessary infrastructure.

Australian businesses that are struggling with Turnbull’s cheaper version, with its continuing use of 19th century derived copper wire technology or 1990s pay-TV-derived hybrid fibre coaxial cable technology may be wondering whether the Coalition should have discovered “good” infrastructure debt earlier and supported Labor’s more expensive fibre-optic to-the-premises model.

After all, under Rudd, the NBN was meant to be the nation-building 21st century equivalent of 19th-century government infrastructural expenditure on building railways.

Consequently, the government faces questions about whether its economic policy positions have been consistent, particularly given past Coalition rhetoric about debts and deficits.

Furthermore, while Morrison apparently characterises it as bad debt, providing temporary welfare benefits for those who lose their jobs because of economic downturns or restructuring helps keep up consumption levels. This in turn means it potentially has flow-on benefits for the private sector, as well as the individuals concerned.

It is a central lesson of the Keynesian economics that Robert Menzies’ Liberal Party embraced at its foundation, but was rejected under John Howard in the 1980s.

Does all of this mean that Turnbull is now acknowledging a lesson of the 2016 election: that neoliberalism is harder to sell than it used to be? Are his backdowns on “small-l” liberal values now being combined with back-downs on some of his long-held free-market values?

That seems to be going too far at present, especially given the government’s continued belief in the “trickle-down” benefits of corporate tax cuts and attacks on welfare expenditure.

However, there is some nuancing taking place as Turnbull tries to throw off the image of “Mr Harbourside Mansion” who loves hobnobbing with bright young technology entrepreneurs, and instead stress he is in touch with the concerns of ordinary voters.

Consequently, and much to Labor’s outrage, the government has now repositioned itself as an advocate of equal opportunity and fairness that supports a Gonski-lite needs-based education funding model.

While the government’s cuts to higher education will still have a negative impact on universities, and particularly students, the measures are less harsh than those in the 2014 budget.

It seems likely there will be some attempt in the budget to assist first home buyers. Various options have been canvassed.

Turnbull has already tried to position himself as taking action on household energy costs by criticising renewable energy costs and ensuring gas reserves. Meanwhile, there are suggestions the government will improve Medicare benefits in an attempt to counter Labor’s controversial “Mediscare” campaign at the last election.

All budgets are about politics, not just economics. But this budget will be even more so. Not all the measures are working out politically. Abbott is already threatening dissension over the impact of the education measures on Catholic schools.

This is a government in trouble. On one side it faces internal disunity and pressure from Labor’s emphasis on reducing inequality and fostering “inclusive growth”. On the other it has One Nation’s mobilisation of race and protectionism to appeal to the economically marginalised.

Then there is Cory Bernardi, the Greens, Nick Xenophon and a host of independents and other groups to consider.

After all, the budget is only the beginning. The next test is getting key measures through the Senate, perhaps even wedging Labor by deals with the Greens, so that the Coalition is in a stronger position to face the next election.

Carol Johnson, Professor of Politics, University of Adelaide

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Turnbull government aims to distance itself from its predecessor with the 2017-18 budget


Saul Eslake, University of Tasmania

One of the primary objectives of the 2017-18 budget is likely to be to put some distance – politically and in terms of economic policy – between the Turnbull government and its predecessor, that of former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. The Conversation

The Abbott government came to office with a view that any and all public debt was “bad”, and that returning the budget to surplus as quickly as possible was a political and economic imperative. Hence, its first budget emphasised cuts in government spending, including in areas where it had previously promised there would be no cuts.

And it increased taxes, despite having previously promised there would be no tax increases under a Coalition government. The political legacy of those broken promises – and the widespread (and largely justified) perception that those measures were manifestly unfair – contributed to Malcolm Turnbull’s near-death experience at last July’s federal election.

The first budget of the returned Turnbull government will be largely about burying the legacy of its predecessor.

Treasurer Scott Morrison will pronounce the death rites for the so-called “zombie” spending cuts left over from the 2014 budget, which the Senate has refused to pass. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, these are still contributing almost A$8.5 billion to the improvement in the budget bottom line over the four years to 2019-20 (forecast in last year’s MYEFO). It’s also contributing almost A$43 billion of projected savings over the ten years to 2026-27.

The government will of course be seeking savings from the same areas as were to be affected by these zombie measures. But, as we have seen with the announcements last week regarding universities and schools, the savings sought will be smaller.

In addition, greater attention will be paid to perceptions of “fairness” than was the case with the “zombie” measures. The same is likely to be the case with regard to the health measures to be announced in the budget itself.

The budget will also confirm that the so-called “temporary deficit repair levy” will lapse on 1 July. This was the 2% surcharge on the top marginal personal income tax rate which was the only significant taxation measure actually implemented by the Abbott government.

The foreshadowed distinction between “good” and “bad” debt is another element of the budget’s effort to distance the Turnbull government from its predecessor. For all of Tony Abbott’s efforts to portray himself as the infrastructure prime minister, public infrastructure spending actually declined on his watch.

That partly reflected the Abbott government’s unwillingness to accept the advice of then RBA governor Glenn Stevens, the IMF, the OECD and others, that government borrowing, especially at record low interest rates, to fund well-targeted infrastructure investment was a good thing.

In this year’s budget, the government will foreshadow additional borrowing in order to finance additional infrastructure spending. Some of this will be on projects that would clearly meet Glenn Stevens’ criteria of “appropriate governance” and “appropriate pricing” – such as a second Sydney Airport. Some of it will be on projects which, more likely than not, would not pass those tests.

But the government will seek to quarantine this “good” debt from detracting from its policy and political goal of returning the budget to surplus. It will do this by focusing attention on the net operating balance or difference between revenues and operating expenses – as state and territory governments and the New Zealand government have done in their budgets for decades.

Indeed, by focusing on this measure, the budget might be able to proclaim a return to surplus in 2019-20, a year earlier than projected for the underlying cash balance.

Such an achievement would perhaps allow the government to gloss over the fact that the budget will do far less to address the on-going deterioration in housing affordability, than it had foreshadowed earlier this year.

The proposed bond aggregator will provide a vehicle for community and not-for-profit providers of affordable rental housing to borrow larger sums, for longer terms and at lower interest rates, from the bond markets. This is a welcome initiative for a sector of the housing market that has for too long received too little attention from governments.

But the government is clearly unwilling to contemplate any measures that might reduce the competition which low-income renters increasingly face from middle-income households who are no longer able to afford to become home-owners. That’s in no small part because of the competition which they in turn face from investors who enjoy tax concessions more favourable than in almost any other “advanced” economy.

This competition has seen the share of housing loans going to investors rise from less than 20% twenty-five years ago to almost 50% in recent years.

The only measure which the budget is likely to include as a form of purported assistance to would-be home-buyers – a mooted plan to allow prospective first-time buyers to make pre-tax contributions to a dedicated savings account from which they could later withdraw in order to fund a deposit. It’s only marginally less worse than the idea of allowing would-be home-buyers to draw down their superannuation savings in order to enhance their deposits.

This was a proposal which Prime Minister Turnbull rightly described as “thoroughly bad”. But as a piece of product differentiation from the Abbott government, which did absolutely nothing in the housing arena, it fits with what is likely to be the most important theme of this week’s budget.

Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Abbott questions Turnbull’s schools plan


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has taken a swipe at Malcolm Turnbull’s schools plan, pointing out it did not go to the Coalition party oom and predicting it will be “pretty vigorously debated” there when parliament resumes next week. The Conversation

In provocative comments on the government’s major attempt to neutralise Labor’s advantage on education, Abbott said it was a “a very big change of policy that the prime minister announced”.

The government on Tuesday committed to an extra A$18.6 billion in funding to Australian schools over the next decade, including more than $2.2 billion in this budget for the first four years.

“I note that at this stage it’s hard to see that any of this extra funding is specifically tied to better academic outcomes and better student performance,” Abbott said.

“I’ve always thought that the problem with our school system is not so much lack of funding, because there’s been very big increases in education funding over the last decade without a commensurate increase in outcomes.

“The problem is that we need better teachers not just more teachers.

“We need much more academic rigour in the curriculum, we need much more principal autonomy and we need much more parental involvement. That’s what we need in schools,” he said on 2GB.

Abbott did not mention the inquiry to be done by David Gonski – who prepared the 2011 report on which the funding commitments are based – into how the money can be invested to get better student outcomes. This review was announced as part of Tuesday’s plan. It is to report in December, and the government wants the recommended reforms tied to the states’ funding.

Under the government’s plan, a handful of wealthy non-government schools stand to lose some money. Asked whether he would be speaking up for two schools in his electorate that would go backwards, Abbott said he would not flag what may or may not be said in the partyroom.

“I just know that it’s been almost an article of faith in our party since the time of Menzies that we were the party that promoted parental choice in education, we were the party that promoted choice in health care, and I think it’s very important that we maintain our traditional position as the party which respects freedom of choice in both education and health,” he said.

The Greens on Wednesday signalled they are open to negotiations to pass the government’s schools package through the Senate.

As Labor, the states, and Catholic schools authorities attacked the plan, Greens leader Richard Di Natale said that while it was “early days”, the government’s announcement “puts the issue of needs-based funding firmly on the national agenda” and “we are open to a conversation about it”.

If the government got support from the Greens it would require just one additional vote in the Senate.

Nick Xenophon, who commands three Senate votes, said his team needed to get a full briefing. He said that in getting Gonski to give his imprimatur, the government had “pulled a rabbit out of the hat”.

The announcement was certainly an improvement on the government’s earlier position, Xenophon said. Gonski’s statements would carry “a fair degree of weight, but that’s not the only consideration”. “We will sit down constructively with the government and engage with other stakeholders,” he said.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/tjvzn-6a63d0?from=yiiadmin

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.