The keenly awaited monthly Nielsen poll of 1400 respondents has Labor’s two-party lead down just slightly to 56-44 from 57-43 a month ago. Likewise, Labor’s primary vote is down a point to 45 per cent and the Coalition’s is up one to 38 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s approval rating is down three points to 68 per cent and his disapproval is up five to 28 per cent. Malcolm Turnbull’s approval is up two points to 37 per cent, and his disapproval is steady on 53 per cent. Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister has narrowed marginally from 69-23 to 68-22. Michelle Grattan provides further details on responses to asylum seeker policies:
As the effort to persuade the 78 Sri Lankans on the Oceanic Viking to disembark in Indonesia continues, 47 per cent of Australians disapprove of how the Prime Minister is handling the asylum-seeker issue; 45 per cent approve … Nearly two-thirds of Coalition voters disapproved, compared with one-third of Labor voters and just over half the Greens supporters … just 13 per cent thought the Government’s asylum-seeker policy was too harsh; 37 per cent said it was about right. Only 6 per cent of Coalition voters and 14 per cent of ALP voters said the policies were too hard. Labor voters were more than twice as likely to rate the policies too soft as too harsh. Nearly four in 10 Greens voters said they were too harsh.
UPDATE: The Australian offers results from that follow-up Newspoll we’ve been hearing about, but at this stage at least there are no figures on voting intention. It instead focuses on attitudes to asylum seeker policy, with results that largely echo those of last week’s Essential Research survey: 53 per cent disapprove of the government’s handling of the issue against 31 per cent approve, but only 22 per cent believe the Coalition would do a better job against 21 per cent for Labor. Forty-six per cent believe the government’s response has been too soft against 16 per cent too hard.
UPDATE 2: Essential Research: 59-41, i.e. unchanged on the last few weeks. However, Rudd’s approval ratings have taken a hit. Further questions on interest rates and yet another one on whether the government’s asylum seeker policies are tough, weak or just right.
Bennelong Resident,
[I’m mighty tempted to think the Newspoll outlier was rigged, but still don’t see the finally convincing evidence.]
Ben, I don’t think the outlier was rigged at all. The fix is in by News Ltd and Newspoll not releasing the Political Party voting intention figures with the AS question figures on Monday.
It is clear that they could “not” have derived the later figures without polling the former!
There are a range of motives for not releasing them and most probably all or most of the ones canvassed on PB are right on the money!
Joyce is right in one respect. On CC, the Nats will bleed the Libs in country and regional areas. This leaves the CC deniers in the Libs frustrated. It leaves also a rump of CC believers frustrated.
Will the dampish side of the conservatives split to form a new party? If they believe CC is on, they can hardly stay where they are.
scorpio, I’ve already given you evidence via the Newspoll link to show that they take polls on specific issues outside of the normal fortnightly voting intention polling cycle.
But if you want to continue to stick your head in the sand and be a CLLR then so be it.
Boerwar@752:
[On CC, the Nats will bleed the Libs in country and regional areas. ]
Not sure where I read it, but it is my understanding that the Nats and their constituents are out of phase on CC. That is, the farmers and graziers believe there is climate change . The continuing drought is hard to ignore.
If anyone has verifiable data on this aspect, I’d be glad to hear it.
evan
[I feel a little sorry for Turnball and Ian Macfarlane! They’re swimming against the tide of scepticism & stupidity engulfing the parliamentary Liberal party.]
So do I. I think Costello might have been a lot smarter than we gave him credit for. No-one could lead that rabble. I’m torn between wanting the ETS passed and wanting a DD on AGW to annihilate their sorry Coalition. Just imagine the finger-pointing at Barnaby etc when they wake up the morning after a DD election with about 50 seats and losing the BOP to the Greens in the Senate.
don
The official policy of the NFF is that AGW is happening and should be addressed. I haven’t seen the figures of the actual farmers though.
[I feel a little sorry for Turnball and Ian Macfarlane! They’re swimming against the tide of scepticism & stupidity engulfing the parliamentary Liberal party.]
Evan14, there’s more to come tonight which won’t be very helpful to Turnbull!
Kevin Andrews is on 7’s TDT tonight flaming up the migrant issue by condemning ethnic enclaves etc. Knowing some of Andrews’ previous sprays on this, it won’t be very helpful to the Libs standing with Australia’s migrant community.
A lot of Turnbull’s constituents won’t be very happy!
don
I don’t have any data, sorry! I would love to have some. The farmers I have talked to have an abiding suspicion of government. They regard cc responses as more government that will cost more money. The smarter ones realize that there will probably be more money in the long run in soil sequestration but are not certain about that. They also know that the figures for agricultural CO2 emissions are all over the place at the moment. In the interim they will probably go with the simple notion of leaving farmers out of the ETS altogether. Bottom line, Joyce will get squillions from King Coal to spruik his nonsense and he would probably look more trustworthy to farmers than twenty Rudds and Turnbulls.
While musing on 4 Corners in the shower this morning, no, make that “raging” I was struck by one of Abbott’s pieces of idiocy. I distinctly recall him describing the IPCC as “alarmist”.
Just like the alarmist Heart Foundation’s scaremongering over healthy eating and avoiding high fat foods. Or the alarmist NRMA/RACQ and the need for obeying traffic signs and speed limits to avoid road accidents. Or the alarmist Surf Clubs insisting you swim between the flags at the beach. Or the alarmist warnings at RSL clubs about problem gambling and need for caution at the pokies. Or the alarmist Police warning about drink driving. (C’mon PBers, there must be more.)
And remember, there is no consensus on these alarmist views and not a skerrick of scientific data to support them. 🙂
[if Newspoll asked the voting prefernce question, anaylsed the sample, and did the weightings to get the attitude question results, they must have the 2PP as well.]
Absolutely correct
[If anyone has verifiable data on this aspect, I’d be glad to hear it.]
There was a poll a couple of months ago (did possum have it? can’t remember) which showed that farmers were actually more likely to believe in cc than the general public,
Anecdotally, about five years ago I arranged some interviews for one of the major Unis with local farmers on climate change. I deliberately made sure there were some true rednecks in there, as well as some of the greener types. I was quite surprised that – even with encouragement to say otherwise – all of them believed that something was happening to the climate.
Some of these guys were able to produce rainfall, temperature and river height records going back to the 1860s.
Locally, I know dairy farmers who set up here because of the reliability of the rainfall over decades who have now gone into beef, citing the change of climate; local farmers have shifted calving times from spring to autumn, citing climate change; a friend of mine, having spent twenty years establishing a raspberry farm, has ripped them all up because ‘the winters aren’t cold enough any more’.
The kind of person Barnaby appeals to is similar in many ways to Pauline’s mob (who were also from QLD!). They tend to live in the town, not on a farm.
zoomster
I don’t think the issue is whether farmers believe in CC. Most of them have already experienced something like CC and they are shit-scared of it. The real issue, then, is what next? I believe that for farmers that is: agriculture inside the ETS, or not? If you don’t trust government then staying out of the ETS is the gut choice, particularly if no-one is quite certain of whether soil sequestration is going to return you more than being inside an ETS is going to cost you.
[The kind of person Barnaby appeals to is similar in many ways to Pauline’s mob (who were also from QLD!). They tend to live in the town, not on a farm.]
barnyard’s bible bashing, banjo plucking brigade of blaggards,blowhards and boofheads
😉
Possum’s post on the poll:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/08/18/agriculture-and-climate-change/
[While musing on 4 Corners in the shower this morning, no, make that “raging” I was struck by one of Abbott’s pieces of idiocy. I distinctly recall him describing the IPCC as “alarmist”.]
This is coming from the man who questions the impacts of second hand smoke on children locked in cars with smoking parents. Nothing he says should be taken seriously by anyone.
Scorpio at #751:
I agree. News/Newpoll have done nothing for their credibility by not following up last week’s outlier with a special, unscheduled poll. Whether or not they did and decided not to publish is a moot point. The damage is done by not following up on such a newsworthy story.
[Ian Macfarlane was a farmer and president of the Queensland Graingrowers Association before entering politics. He has acquired the nickname “Chainsaw” due to his raspy voice and according to him, his ability to “cut through red tape”.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Macfarlane_%28politician%29
With his background, Chainsaw would have maintained contacts with the various Ag bodies including the NFF. This has probably been of assistance in putting their views forward to the Opposition but going by links on the NFF website, the NFF might have done somewhat of a backflip in support of the Nats and their position on the ETS!
Not totally sure as I have only seen the headers for the links but they don’t look promising!
http://www.nff.org.au/
It’s become clear to me that bleeding hearts have more HATE for those that simply disagree with their distorted outlook on life than anyone who dislikes illegal immigration.
It is impossible to engage with these people. You tell them you are against boatpeople because they are jumping the queue and stealing a position from a legitimate refugee… so they call you a racist(not too sure how that one works! Typical bleeding heart attack though).
You try to explain to them that boatpeople have already fled persecution by getting to Malaysia or Indonesia… they scream you hate refugees and a xenophob.
You then very very very calmly try to explain that there are millions of people who are REAL Refugee’s, many sitting patiently in decrepid U.N camps in some hellhole part of the world getting their positions stolen by these queue jumpers, many of whom have been living in Indonesia for years. They scream how inhumane you are, talk about how “evil” Howard was because he stopped the boats and that they are “right” it’s just no one has yet realised just how “right” they are(they actually think people have different opinions on boatpeople because we are now 8 years after the Tampa, like that makes a toss of difference).
Morals and Values do not change very often. Boatpeople offend both the morals and values of a majority of Australians. It did so in 2001, it does so now. Calling people racists because their values and morals are different to your own is the equivalent of me calling those that support boatpeople as Pinko Communist Socialist terrorists. How does it feel for the debate to fall to that kind of level? Yet this is the attack the left uses constantly… no actual substance on the debate on their behalf, just empty rhetoric with abusive personal attacks.
No you aren’t “right”, you just THINK you are, in your OWN mind.
Zoomster said
[ dave @ 701 – a set of virtual steak knives will be emailed to you. Congratulations!]
Thank you sir 🙂 I believe in helping the needy. Who could use these very worthy steak knives ??? mmmm.
Not the libs or nats – they have lotsa knives – just not quite enough backs to stab them into. They are chopping each other and their futures into tiny pieces already.
How about selling the steak knifes to help a needy soul somewhere. Maybe help someone to get back on their medication ? Would you happen to know someone in such need ??
Oh yes a good example was David Marr’s attack on the Australian people on Q & A.
How did this far-leftwing bigot run the “unbiased” mediawatch for so long?
scorpio
from their april 09 submission to the senate on climate policy
[While an ETS is currently an inappropriate climate policy for agriculture, the NFF understands the Australian Government?s intention to limit man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, the NFF recognises that the risks of climate variability are
7
heightened for Australia?s agriculture sector due to its direct and significant exposure to the impacts of any change in the climate. The NFF also recognizes that market-based mechanisms, such as an ETS, can be appropriate for driving least-cost greenhouse emissions abatement across the entire economy]
http://www.nff.org.au/get/2471482866.pdf
TTH @ #768:
“No you aren’t “right”, you just THINK you are, in your OWN mind.”
Talk about needing a mirror and looking up the phrase to do with pots and black kettles.
PBers are quite open-minded and come here for debate, at least the ones worth reading and no, that doesn’t include you.
It’s not what you say that gets you the bagging you so richly deserve, it’s the way you say it.
BTW, my father-in-law comes from a similar town to you and you not represent “real Australians”. Only in your mind.
[No you aren’t “right”, you just THINK you are, in your OWN mind.]
Isn’t this just stating the obvious? Whether something is right or not is a matter of personal opinion.
Boerwar,
[The smarter ones realize that there will probably be more money in the long run in soil sequestration but are not certain about that. They also know that the figures for agricultural CO2 emissions are all over the place at the moment. In the interim they will probably go with the simple notion of leaving farmers out of the ETS altogether.]
Barnaby is only pushing one point to them. That is that Labor wants them to pay for emissions from agriculture. He never mentions that there will be no consideration of agricultural emissions before 2012 and more probably later.
It is just blatant “fear mongering” playing on what it “may” cost farmers and rural businesses but totally ignores any potential for farmers to benefit financially from carbon sequestration etc and carbon trading.
People who are fearful are vulnerable to a message that allays that fear and these people are ripe for the picking in that all the rural media have been pushing this fear message hard for some time now and most farmers and rural business people, get most and sometimes all their information from those sources!
Barnaby is tapping into a rich vein of confused and fearful people looking for answers and solutions to those fears. Of course, as we have seen, Barnaby has those answers for them which, unfortunately, don’t really address their concerns at all because it conflicts with what they are seeing with their own eyes and experiences.
This of course makes them even more susceptible to a snake oil salesman like Barnaby who represents their traditional political support mechanism, the National Party.
Bennelong Resident,
TTH is just taking over the next shift from Bob!
Don’s advice is best in dealing with this sort of thing! 🙂
[Don’t feed the troll.]
Thanks very much Dio, Boerwar and Zoomster.
Great to have the NFF and the Nats disagreeing. What are the Nats thinking? Or is that a dumb question?
Also glad to have the anecdotal info about changes in ag practice because of CC. I’ve posted stuff here previously about my noticing vegetation changes in bushwalking sites.
Zoomster, you’re a gem!
Thanks for finding Poss’s info. Data doesn’t get better than that. Knew I’d read it somewhere.
Here’s one of the bits I was thinking of:
[Of all industries, the ABS says:
Agricultural industries with a high percentage of businesses reporting that they considered the climate affecting their holding had changed were citrus fruit growing (81.0%), apple and pear growing (77.3%), rice growing (74.7%), and dairy cattle farming (73.5%). In contrast, 41.5% of sugar cane growers considered the climate affecting their holding had changed.
Similarly, the ABS asked what the impact of these changes were on farm holdings.
So far, the majority of the impacts from climate change are overwhelmingly seen to be negative. What is interesting about this politically is the National Party line on climate change. One wonders just how close the Nats are to the beliefs of the actual farming communities that the National Party allegedly represents.]
“Isn’t this just stating the obvious? Whether something is right or not is a matter of personal opinion.”
There is a very big difference between how people from the bleeding heart brigade and the rest of us accept this though.
Of course people have different opinions on different subjects, and they all think they are correct.
The difference between the bleeding hearts and everyone else thinks is this though: The bleeding hearts think we KNOW they are right, we just haven’t accepted their way of thinking yet. Like they are devine intervention from God himself. Actually they are much like religious nutters, telling us of their “gospel”.
Well NO, we don’t think you are right. And NO, whether it’s 2001 or 2009 our morals and values still remain the same, and they still say you are WRONG. You are not the descipals of God doing Jesus work, you are a bunch of idiots who think you know better than everyone else, but at the ballot box you have just ONE vote. Just because you carp on the loudest… you use the most derogatory terms for your opponents and you piss and moan on about how much more “humane” you are doesn’t mean your view actually counts more then Jim Bobs down the roads.
If the far left want to make your case about boatpeople, then for christ sakes make it. But don’t lecture me, or the Australian people on how “racist” they are because they don’t follow your BS like you were Jesus.
[scorpio
from their april 09 submission to the senate on climate policy]
Gus, yeah I’ve seen that and just having a quick scan of two links on the NFF website it appears that that position is still valid and what they are putting to their members.
It is certainly poles apart from what Barnaby is pushing hard!
http://www.nff.org.au/read/2472951081.html
http://www.nff.org.au/read/2470657460.html
[you use the most derogatory terms for your opponents and you piss and moan on about how much more “humane” you are doesn’t mean your view actually counts more then Jim Bobs down the roads.]
So what’s jim bob got say then?
Calm down TTH. Just because you type in capitals and use hackneyed phrases like ‘bleeding hearts’ does not suggest that you should be taken seriously, rather that you lack the intellectual capacity to mount a cogent argument.
Why you waste your time on blogs like this amazes me, when there are plenty of forums for your style of vitriol. I’m sure you’d be welcomed with open arms at Bolt and Blair and company. Run along now.
Well it’s certainly within people’s rights to make conclusions about others based on their arguments. If I want to think certain arguments relating to our treatment of potential asylum seekers are racist then that’s my right.
In addition, I hardly think you’re taking the high road in calling people who support a more huminitarian approach to the issue of asylum seekers ‘bleeding hearts’.
When it comes down to it there’s very little engagement usually on the actual issues and far too much name-calling. Unlike the politicians we have nothing to gain by this.
[While musing on 4 Corners in the shower this morning, no, make that “raging” I was struck by one of Abbott’s pieces of idiocy. I distinctly recall him describing the IPCC as “alarmist”.]
Where better an extreme example of the use of “alarmism” is there than Abbott’s precious Catholic Church?
Well lets talk about this claim that “Australians have moved on since Tampa”
What exactly does this mean??
In my view Australians HAVE moved on since Tampa. We had a vote on it back in 2001, and the conclusions to that vote were pretty obvious, people wanted stricter border protection and for the boats to stop coming.
But when the far left say “Australians have moved on since Tampa” they pretend that THEY were right, and that we have over 8 years changed our minds to agree with them. This is the Jesus mentality I was talking about. That they know “best” they are the “ultimate truth” they are doing Gods work and everyone will come round to their way of thinking over time.
I don’t think the boatpeople is an issue on opinions and views… it’s one of morals and values, and I can assure you, peoples morals and values are the same in 2009 as they were in 2001.
The Rudd government should accept this and stop letting irrelevent minority groups take over the dialogue on what is right and wrong. There was a clear mandate on this issue back in 2001, and I think the government should always listen to what a majority of Australians want.
How exactly is it a moral or values-based issue? What is the moral or value lying behind wanting ‘stricter border protection’?
So your beef is against “queue jumpers” and the moralising lefties.
[I don’t think the boatpeople is an issue on opinions and views… it’s one of morals and values, and I can assure you, peoples morals and values are the same in 2009 as they were in 2001.]
then why did howie get booted?
or were we sleepwalking and we will suddenly wake up and find that our 2001 values have been replaced with some lefty nirvana.?
Gee TTH, the ALP must be so worried about “losing” your vote from 2007.
[There is a very big difference between how people from the bleeding heart brigade and the rest of us accept this though]
[you use the most derogatory terms for your opponents]
Hahahahahahaha
783
People were very ignorant of refugee issues in 2001. (I know I was, and I was heavily involved in the election campaign, and thus across a lot of issues).
Now they are not only a lot more aware of issues such as overstayers, the conditions in camps, etc but they have also seen the consequences to Australian citizens like Rau and Solo if the laws are enforced without humanity.
They are also aware of what conditions were like at Wimmera and (most) were appalled by these.
In eight years, people have become more informed and so the debate has changed.
[There was a clear mandate on this issue back in 2001, and I think the government should always listen to what a majority of Australians want.]
Both sides of politics had a mandate on the white Australia policy in the early 1900’s, it was clearly what a majority of Australians wanted then.
No Party has a mandate for it now and the majority of Australians don’t want it now!
The same applies to your argument. Build a bridge and get over it!
Listen to Adrian @ 780, he is right. Don’t be too proud to take good, sound advice when it is offered!
[Morals and Values do not change very often. Boatpeople offend both the morals and values of a majority of Australians.]
You talk about what is offensive to people’s morals. If you want to know what really offends people, it’s a political party attacking their rights at work, their pay and job security. And if they’re offended at being attacked personally, they’re doubly offended at their kids / grandkids being attacked.
I’ll tell you this. Even rednecks are more concerned about their working conditions than they are about a few brown-skinned “boat people”. People have an enduring self-interest that trumps even whipped-up xenophobia. Don’t believe me? Watch next election.
The Liberals have never apologised for SerfChoices, or said said they wouldn’t do the same again. Quite the contrary, they say they still “hold a philosophical position on IR”. That position, obviously, is WorkChoices – though they won’t call it by *that* name again. You can be sure that the first thing they will try to do whenever they return to government is continue their crusade against employees.
If you voted against the Liberals for SerfChoices (as you’ve repeatedly claimed) then your support for them now is to be complicit in selling your own kids’ workplace conditions down the river.
To knowingly betray one’s descendants is tantamount to an Untouchable in India selling their kids into virtual slavery. In a poor country like that they have few options. To do so in a rich country like this is morally offensive, and that’s describing it politely.
“How exactly is it a moral or values-based issue? What is the moral or value lying behind wanting ’stricter border protection’?”
1. Did not wait in line like others who seek Refugee status for Australia
2. Came to Australia without our permission and without our invitation
3. Had various other safe havens to stay in on their way here
4. Often use tactics such as blackmail to force entry
Ask anyone if it was THEIR house would they want the people coming inside that did that. It wouldn’t matter who it was, this is an offence to peoples values and morals.
Thats why the left will never get traction with this topic, has nothing to do with racism, it has everything to do with values and morals.
Opinions change, Values and Morals never do.
[Lets see what Australians think of Rudd’s soft touch Asylum policies after another year of boatpeople flooding here, another year of stunts/blackmail attempts, and another year of possible drownings.
There’ll be plenty more Oceanic Vikings for you to deal with, I assure you.]
TTH, it is hard to take you seriously when you come out with exaggerated nonsense like this.
Just on aside, where is Planet Janet? I would have thought she would have come out all guns blazing, frothing with righteous indignation, at Rudd’s denial of her freedom of speech (which is how she would interpret his criticism of her criticism).
[People were very ignorant of refugee issues in 2001. (I know I was, and I was heavily involved in the election campaign, and thus across a lot of issues).
Now they are not only a lot more aware of issues such as overstayers, the conditions in camps, etc but they have also seen the consequences to Australian citizens like Rau and Solo if the laws are enforced without humanity.]
Personally I’m not so sure of this. I don’t think most people know or care about those issues. Peoples’ positions on the issue will largely be based on much simpler grounds.
If you provide people who harp on about ‘soft’ border protection with information on overstayers, conditions in camps etc. I’m very doubtful it’d change their view.
However, what’s in the Government’s knowledge is most important. The Government can’t claim ignorance as a shield to back up policies which aren’t right, unlike a large section of the public.
TruthHurts the reason the “bleeding hearts” get so frustrated is because the argument about asylum seekers is largely prosecuted by people who understand almost nothing about the issue.
Let’s take your post @ 768 as an example:
Illegal immigrants – asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. There is no provision in Australian law which makes it illegal to enter Australia without authorization and seek asylum. As a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention it would be incompatible with our obligations under the convention to make it illegal.
Queue jumpers – a person becomes a refugee the moment they fulfill the definition as outlined in the Articles of the Convention. Neither convention States nor the UNHCR bestow refugee status they simply confirm it. All people with a well founded fear of persecution are “legitimate refugees” be they living in camps in non-convention States like Pakistan or transiting to convention States like Australia. The so called queue is a misleading construct designed to confuse and confound the ill-informed. The legitimate process for seeking asylum as enunciated by the Articles of the Convention and given effect to in Australia’s domestic laws is for a refugee to leave the country in which they have well founded fear of persecution and seek asylum in a country that is a signatory to the convention. The convention was specifically designed to avoid the corrupted process we have now where convention States shift the burden of asylum onto non-convention States like Pakistan and Indonesia.
Boat people in Indonesia and Malaysia – Indonesia and Malaysia are not signatories to the refugee convention and as such they do not offer either effective protection or a durable solution. The issue becomes what defines “effective protection” and “a durable solution”. As non-convention States do not process asylum seeker claims and do not offer protection under the convention it is difficult to argue that asylum seekers can find “effective protection” and/or “a durable solution” inside Indonesia or Malaysia, even given the presence of IOM and UNHCR processes. While there were numerous rhetorical attempts by the Howard government to argue that asylum seekers could find effective protection and a durable solution in Indonesia the reality was something different. Despite almost all boat arrivals having transited through Indonesia in no case did Australia return to Indonesia an asylum seeker found to be owed protection under the convention. In practice, although not in words, Australia held that asylum seekers transiting through Indonesia did not engage in secondary movement as defined by the UNHCR and did not deny claims on that basis.
Truthiness
Haven’t you closed down all the borders? That was an excellent solution, wasn’t it.
There is no queue in many of these countries.
And how is that argument about taxpayers money going? You know, that one about saving money by locking up boat people for a couple of hundred million. That one was a belter.
If you want to be taken seriously, hysterical rants won’t cut it here. They are actually counter-productive because everyone just assumes you don’t have anything to say.
“Illegal immigrants – asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. There is no provision in Australian law which makes it illegal to enter Australia without authorization and seek asylum. As a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention it would be incompatible with our obligations under the convention to make it illegal.”
Why is it the left know the least about the subjects they claim to be experts on?
It is indeed illegal to enter Australian waters without a passport, visa and Australia’s permission. Punishable by mandatory detention.
Now this legislation was introduced by none other than the Labor Government of Hawke and Keating.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/MIG/detention/report/appendixd.pdf
Migration Legislation Amendment Act 1989
In the context of an increasing number of unauthorised boat arrivals from Indochina, the Act introduced significant changes to the system of processing boat people. It provided that an officer had discretion to arrest and detain a person suspected of being an ‘illegal entrant’, although detention was not mandatory.
Migration Amendment Act 1992
Introduced by the Keating Government with bipartisan support, the policy of mandatory detention was envisaged as a temporary and exceptional measure for a particular group of unauthorised arrivals or ‘designated’ persons who arrived by boat between 19 November 1989 and 1 September 1994. The period of detention was limited to 273 days.
Migration Reform Act 1992
Extended mandatory detention from a specified group to all who did not hold a valid visa. The Act established a new visa system making a simple distinction between a ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’ non-citizen. Under Section 13 of the Act, a migration officer had an obligation to detain any person suspected of being unlawful.
The Act removed the 273 day detention limit which had applied under the Migration Amendment Act 1992. Overstayers could apply for a bridging visa which allowed them to stay in the community while their claims were assessed. The Act had bipartisan support.
TheTruthHurts, the Government is not attempting to end the policy of mandatory detention though is it? If you take the view that unauthorised arrivals should be curbed, then what is the best way to do this? How is the Government failing to do this exactly?
[PBers are quite open-minded]
This would be funny if it wasn’t such an outright lie.
TruthHurts @ 797 you do understand how the law works don’t you? You do understand that the current Act does not include the concept of “illegal” anything and instead distinguishes between lawful and unlawful? You do understand that mandatory detention is not a “punishment” and that if it was it would be in direct contravention of our obligations under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention?
Why is it that the Right know almost next to nothing and understand even less?