ACNielsen: 56-44

After giving Labor its worst poll result of the Rudd government era a month ago, ACNielsen has now returned to the field. This month’s survey has Labor’s lead up from 52-48 to 56-44, from primary votes of 46 per cent for Labor (up five) and 39 per cent for the Coalition (down three). Remarkably, both leaders’ approval ratings are up 10 points, Kevin Rudd’s to a personal best 71 per cent and Malcolm Turnbull’s to 55 per cent. However, Rudd has blown out to big lead on preferred leader, 64 per cent (up eight) to 26 per cent (down seven). Further detail on attitudes to the financial crisis from Michelle Grattan at The Age.

UPDATE: The weekly Essential Research survey has an unusually sharp two-point move in favour of Labor, who now lead 59-41 on two-party preferred. Kevin Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister has also blown out to 55-20 from 45-25 a month ago. Interestingly, respondents are more confident the economy can withstand the financial crisis than they were a week ago. Also included are questions on the government stimulus package, the emissions trading scheme and more.

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.

1,812 comments on “ACNielsen: 56-44”

Comments Page 35 of 37
1 … 34 35 36 37

  1. The Government is not a babysitter. If people want to access pro-anorexic material they will do it somehow. They did it before the internet and will do it with this filter.

    Dale Clappetron, head of Electronic Frontiers Australia, discusses the matter quite extensively and provides an analogy as follows:

    “If a parent opens the front door and lets their child go outside to play unsupervised, and something bad happens, is it the fault of the outside world or is it the fault of the parent? … this is merely one part of a disturbing trend of the abdication of parental responsability to the government. The Internet is supposedly harming children, so instead of parents supervising and educating their children, the government will tame the Internet… The government isn’t a babysitter and neither is the Internet!’

    There are products out there for parents to install on their computers should they be concerned about their childrens’ access. There’s no real need to impose censorship on the general population.

  2. The Piping Shrike @ 1678. Agree with that. Still reckon Systems Theory has something to say about the behaviour of the global financial system, though a resounding silence met my offer to say something, even pithy. No matter. Go back to watching the polls.

  3. Bejesus some poeple here are dumb. Its called politics guys and gals. It is a Green wedge but you Green twits are to dumb to see it.

    OK go on, oppose it.

    See what happens, “Greens support, child porn, cyber stalking, kiddie fiddling, whatever you want to lump in as cyber nasties”.

    Of course its not true, but the perception is. This is hardball politics, like it or not. 🙁

  4. Well hooray for us all if the Government gets their way right ruawake, I’m sure we’ll all be welcoming internet speeds up to 86% slower.

  5. Oz, I’m not suggesting that a filter would deal with the problem. What I’m suggesting is that there are a number of problems that such a system poses. I don’t pretend to have the answers.

  8. [What I’m suggesting is that there are a number of problems that such a system poses.]

    Indeed, but since we’re talking about a ISP level filter, a simple fact like that is irrelevant.

    [See what happens, “Greens support, child porn, cyber stalking, kiddie fiddling, whatever you want to lump in as cyber nasties”.]

    The people who would actually fall for such a pathetic and inept argument would probably never vote Green anyway. Which makes me think it’s more likely a Liberal wedge.

  9. [The people who would actually fall for such a pathetic and inept argument would probably never vote Green anyway. Which makes me think it’s more likely a Liberal wedge.]

    Me too

  10. I don’t see why the internet should be the only form of media which is totally free of censorship of any kind. (I’m not talking about the technical feasability here, just the principle.) TV, cinema, magazines, radio, books, advertising are all subject to some measure of supervision and restriction to protect children, to protect privacy, to prevent crime or to meet various other social objectives. Households with school-age children have to have internet access, and parents have neither the time nor the expertise to supervise what their kids are looking at or who they are talking to. It’s true there is already software etc that parents can buy, but the fact is, as noted above, that most of them don’t. There is a role for the state to protect children from things and people that their parents are too busy, too inept or too negligent to protect them from. I agree that doing this in a way that doesn’t infringe on the freedom of other people to look at what they like is necessary, and may be difficult, but if it is technically feasable then I don’t see what objection there can be to it.

  11. ruawake @1703. I don’t doubt you are right about the politics, nevertheless there is that bit where the real problems people encounter intersect with the political. I claim no expert knowledge about how the internet operates, but have some knowledge of how it has an impact on a particularly vulnerable group, and the difficulty their parents have in dealing with it. All I’m saying is that I don’t know, and I’m not sure anyone else does either.

  12. You know the other thing that has me gob smacked? Everyone fell for Generic Person’s diversion. Have we all got ADHD?

  13. I think it could end up an ALP self-wedge. It has “own goal” written all over it. How does it fit with superfast broadband nation-building, for example?

    10% faster, and 86% slower!

  14. Came in late – see the talk is about Conroy. Geez, he is a back bencher lost on the front bench. (one of the things misse din the Ken Henry estimates, is how useless Conroy was next to him – Faulkner would have got in and slaughtered Abetz)

  15. The Rudd government is not going to bow to pressure and extend the guarantee beyond bank deposits. Had he caved in, that grub of an opposition leader with their mates at the oo would have gone in for the kill. A strong and wise decision by the PM. The egg is well and truly on the face of that lightweight Fullbull. Rudd called his blough and he was left with a pair of twos.

    During this crisis, all we have had from Allbull is criticism and criticism and not once, not once his own single policy. He is the blame for causing people to panic with their investments, all for his own political gain.

  17. SNIP: If a word you use lands your comment in moderation, please respect the principle that put it there, rather than trying to dodge around it – The Management.

  18. [I don’t see why the internet should be the only form of media which is totally free of censorship of any kind. ]
    The whole ethos of the OFLC is that it does not censor, it only classifies. The OFLC is simply meant to classify material to better inform adults about what they (and their children) can watch and read etc. This was the intention of the 1995 act, and is the motto is written all over OFLC publications.

    My argument is that in practice this isn’t what the OFLC does, because they can Refuse Classification to material, which equates to banning, and is thus censorship. We shouldn’t let the OFLC pretend they do one thing, when they actually do something else.

    We need to separate out the issues here. Material which is a record of criminal conduct is illegal. Material that within reasonable doubt may harm adolescents should be classified to deny them access to it, i.e. make it R18+. Material that is not a record of actual criminal activity (I don’t mean simulated / staged criminal activity) should not be banned (Refused Classification). Banning such material is a breach of free speech, and should not occur in a liberal democracy. Adults have the right to have access to such material if they want to. If the Government thinks it should be only available to people older than 18, they should make a 21 classification, and provide supporting evidence that says 18 year olds could be harmed by it.

    This is the only system that stops social conservatives from hijacking the system, and having material banned that they can’t prove can cause any harm to adults. So it is treating adults as if they are children.
    [TV, cinema, magazines, radio, books, advertising are all subject to some measure of supervision and restriction to protect children, to protect privacy, to prevent crime or to meet various other social objectives.]
    There is no evidence that media causes ADULTS to commit crime. There is evidence in psychological tests that violent media can make children and adolescents behave more violently. Which is why we have a classification system designed to stop young people from seeing certain material.
    [There is a role for the state to protect children from things and people that their parents are too busy, too inept or too negligent to protect them from.]
    That’s fine. The Government can pay for filtering software for any family who wants to put it on their computer. They can publicise this fact by insisting that every computer sold in Australia comes with a CD with the filtering software so that people can install it if they want to.

    But they shouldn’t be able to demand that ISPs filter their servers, thus impacting on the performance of the internet for everyone else who doesn’t want to use filtering. It will of course have costs as well, which will be paid for by consumers that don’t want such a ‘service’ in the form of higher ISP fees.

    The Government could save a lot of money here, and just give it to the AFP so they can more thoroughly investigate the minority of adults who use the internet to transmit illegal material, which is a criminal issue, and not a classification or censorship issue at all.
    [It’s almost like it’s a job in itself. In some ways, I hope it is. Because I wouldn’t want to be an employer paying for this…]
    I thought he was a student!

  19. I’m now a bit confused as to whether or not people are responding to what I post, given the last few. I’m certainly used to, and quite relaxed about being ignored. Adam, being mildly obsessive compulsive is a prequisite to gaining even a basic degree.

  22. OK. I’ll have my 10 cents worth on the net restriction and then I’ll run.

    Don’t ban anything. Let them see it. The more restrictions we put in place, the more intrigued they get with it.

    It’s like having a perv at the beach. You know you can see it any time, so you don’t worry about it. The more we fuss, the worse it becomes.

  23. [That’s fine. The Government can pay for filtering software for any family who wants to put it on their computer. They can publicise this fact by insisting that every computer sold in Australia comes with a CD with the filtering software so that people can install it if they want to.]

    The problem with that is not all parents are capable of setting it up correctly (a large number I would think)

  24. Just read this on the ABC on-line front page>

    [The Federal Government’s decision not to guarantee market-based investments has the backing of some analysts.]

    If it had beenTurnbull’s idea, the quote would have read:

    [The Federal Government’s decision not to guarantee market-based investments has the backing of analysts.]

    What are these tools at the ABC thinking?

  25. [The problem with that is not all parents are capable of setting it up correctly (a large number I would think)]

    And their kids, will find a way of circumventing it. 🙂

  26. I am a Microsoft, Cisco and Apple certified system engineer, I have worked for many ISPs. So I do not come to my point of view from ignorance.

    But I will remain on the politics, politics that is opposed at peril. The Govt. is removing internet nasties as an issue. There will be another “internet scandal” sooner or later, the Govt will say “we wanted to do something, but we could not get the legislation through the Senate”.

    Its as simple as that, politics pure and simple. Don’t like it? Go play tiddly winks. 😛

  27. Dario, the solution to that is not to impose a filter on all Australians. The solution would be to offer assistance to anyone who needs to install it (e.g. a hotline, written instructions on the back of the CD etc. etc.) If people do not know how to pop a cd into a computer and click a few boxes it is their responsibility to learn how to do it.

    We don’t provide parents with a way to protect their children when they’re playing outside without parental supervision, we just say the parents should look after them properly. A similar argument applies to the Internet.

    Bushfire Bill, I think by now we know that ‘balance’ at the ABC means treading on eggshells to make sure you don’t offend the Liberal Party.

  30. [There is a role for the state to protect children from things and people that their parents are too busy, too inept or too negligent to protect them from.]

    [That’s fine. The Government can pay for filtering software for any family who wants to put it on their computer. They can publicise this fact by insisting that every computer sold in Australia comes with a CD with the filtering software so that people can install it if they want to.]

    You can’t agree with the first proposition and then flatly contradict it. If you agree that the state has a role to protect children from things and people that their parents are too busy, too inept or too negligent to protect them from, then you can’t argue, “let the parents decide whether to use the filter.”

  32. Sorry ltep, I should clarify my comment above, the cop out is to say that we don’t provide a way to protect children when they outside playing… so therefore we shouldnt do so with the internet. It is not physically possible for a government to offer full time protection when they are outside playing, but it is for the Internet

  36. [Don’t ban anything. Let them see it. The more restrictions we put in place, the more intrigued they get with it. ]
    Most 15 year olds get around Refused Classification on computer games by importing them from the U.S. Customs very rarely open parcels here, they simply don’t have the resources.

    I’ve heard friends import banned films as well. Things like Ken Park and Salo. I have seen Ken Park, but generally I don’t find these so called “boundary pushing” films interesting at all. Yet just because I’m not interested in something doesn’t mean I think the film should be banned. That’s just utter nonsense based around the idea that someone’s taste should determine what adults can watch. It is what happens when you put “artistic merit” clauses in the code.
    [You can’t agree with the first proposition and then flatly contradict it. If you agree that the state has a role to protect children from things and people that their parents are too busy, too inept or too negligent to protect them from, then you can’t argue, “let the parents decide whether to use the filter.”]
    There is a huge difference here. First, internet content is not classified by the OFLC.

    But we currently have a “let the parents decide” system in place. An adult can rent an R18+ film, then take it home and let their 15 year old brother watch it.

    A 15 year old can buy an MA15+ computer game or DVD, then go home and play or watch it with their 12 year old brother.

    The only person who could stop such children from being exposed to such media are PARENTS or GUARDIANS. Once that R18+ DVD is rented, or that game bought. The state, i.e. the police, have absolutely no role in determining who gets access to it within the family home.

    Or are you suggesting that police raid homes to determine who is watching R18+ DVDs?

  38. [There is a huge difference here. First, internet content is not classified by the OFLC.]
    I should correct myself. The OFLC has a role in determining if something is child pornography. I think this is atrocious. This is clearly a criminal matter that should be dealt with by the Australian Federal Police.

    The fact the same statutory authority classifies the latest Wiggles DVD, as well as child pornography demonstrates what a mess the classification system in our country is in.

  40. Oh, so you want the coppers deciding what is obscene and what is not? That’s how it used to work, so they went to the theatre and prosecuted everything they didn’t like.

    It should be a three stage process. Parliament should say “It will be illegal to possess child portnography” (or whatever). A competent expert body should decided whether a given publication is or is not within the ambit of the law. Then the police should enforce the decision that they make.

  41. [I never said the state can do everything (or should). But that is not an argument for doing nothing.]
    But you agree that once an R18+ DVD is in someone’s home, the people responsible for determining who in the house can watch it are the parents / guardians, i.e. the adults in the household?

    I consider this an obvious fact, and I see no reason why the same principle can’t also apply to computer games and the internet.

  43. Yes, Itep, quite a few ppl are arguing they should do nothing.
    * As has already been noted, filters already exist and most parents don’t use them.
    * The people producing the content are in Belarus.

  45. [Oh, so you want the coppers deciding what is obscene and what is not? That’s how it used to work, so they went to the theatre and prosecuted everything they didn’t like.]
    No. If you read my previous posts, I proposed the following: I think there should be ONE grounds for banning something – the material is a documentary record of an ACTUAL criminal act, as defined by the criminal code.

    Everything else should simply be classified based on whether or not it can be considered harmful to children and / or adolescents. The relative degree of harm should determine if it is G, PG, M, MA, or R.

    There is no evidence that violent material is harmful to adults. Adults have a capacity to make distinctions between fact and fiction that children and most adolescents don’t have.

    Unlike the current code, “artistic merit” should have absolutely nothing to do with it. I don’t care how “artistic” something is, if there is evidence it will harm a 14 year old, then the material should be at least MA15+. On the other hand, I couldn’t care less if some bureaucrat doesn’t think something is artistic enough to get an R18+ rating. That is for people who watch the media to decide.

    Unlike the current code, the only material that could be banned would be material that is criminal in nature, e.g. child pornography, and other material defined in the criminal code.

    Once such a system is in place, the OFLC could be privatised. Because the investigation into child pornography would be conducted by the Australian Federal Police.
    [It should be a three stage process. Parliament should say “It will be illegal to possess child portnography” (or whatever).[/quote]
    Sure, this exists at the moment. It is part of the criminal code to make, possess, or transmit such material in any form. The reason this is illegal is because the acts committed to produce it are illegal. The material itself is considered documentary evidence of those criminal acts, and thus can be used against the perpetrators as evidence.

    Note: This is a completely different issue to classifying the latest Hollywood film. These are different issues that we must not mix together.

    [A competent expert body should decided whether a given publication is or is not within the ambit of the law. Then the police should enforce the decision that they make.]
    Well currently the OFLC determines if something is child pornography, and they hand their judgment to the AFP. I am simply proposing that child pornography is too serious an issue to be dealt with by a classification board that spends the rest of its time classifying the latest Tom Cruise film. It should be dealt with by law enforcement officials in the AFP. It is a criminal matter that has nothing to do with classifying films under the 1995 act.

  46. Then that’s most parents’ problem. The Government doesn’t exist to do other peoples’ parenting for them. If there was evidence of wide-spread damage caused by the Internet it’d be another issue. There is none.

    As far as your Belarus comment goes, the Australian Government, if concerned about it, should act in concert with other concerned countries in lobbying Belarus to do something about it or by getting the ISPs who serve these people to get them to remove the material.

    Of course, the material will just move to different locations, but this is not something the filter will solve either.

  49. No 1473

    Adam, if most parents don’t use them then that is evidence that there is no demand for a blanket filter. But even presuming that there is a demand/need for a blanket filter, the very least the government should do is ensure that there is a 100% opt-out option. Conroy promised that last year but has since changed his position – there is no opt-out, but rather a two-tiered filter where the first tier blocks “illegal” material (which you cannot opt out of) and the second tier blocks “inappropriate” material (which you can opt out of). The problem with the first tier is that the legality of certain material can only be objectively decided in a court of law. Conroy’s filter appears to be assuming the role of courts and is almost certainly a breach of the separation of powers imbued in our constitution.

    Maybe I’m speculating too much, but Conroy’s Department has been rather cagey and secretive throughout, even so far as to bully dissenters into submission, which is wholly outrageous.

  50. I think the only reason that we still have – effectively – a government controlled classification system is because we imported the British model.

    But also, we have a long history of political meddling in censorship matters on cultural grounds. For example, in the 1930s numerous British films were banned because they portrayed British subjects in a bad way, i.e. showing them as criminals, or engaging in drunk and lude behaviour. Hitchock’s classic 1935 film The 39 Steps was banned because of scenes with the woman enjoying being hand cuffed to the man actor. The Federal government frequently used the customs power to physically stop such films from being imported by Australian distributors!

    Now the curious thing is that Hollywood films of this period – especially films made before the 1934 production code – that were far racier than British films were frequently allowed into the country. The reasoning was that they were AMERICAN films, and since Australians were superior British subjects, we could look down at Americans and American culture!

    So there was an assumption built into the censorship system that Australians simply wouldn’t take Hollywood films that seriously, and thus wouldn’t be led into immoral behavour by them! Yet similar British films were frequently banned, because we almost had to have this mythic notion that culture in the mother country was so much more refined than those uncouth Americans!

    At the time Australia was Hollywood’s 4th or 5th biggest market. So this policitised censorship policy was possibly also the product of kickbacks to Australian politicians from Hollywood industry representatives.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 35 of 37
1 … 34 35 36 37