ReachTEL has leapt into the post-budget field on behalf of the Seven Network, with an automated phone poll conducted last night from 3180 respondents. It records a slight improvement for the Coalition compared with the pollster’s earlier holding pattern, with the Coalition primary vote on 41.1% (up 1.3%), Labor on 38.3% (down 1.0%), the Greens on 12.1% (up 0.2%) and Palmer United on 2.2% (steady). Interestingly, the poll provides breakdowns by respondents’ employment status, which I might take a closer look at later in comparison with past post-election survey data. The budget doesn’t get a huge endorsement, with 16.4% rating they will be better off, 30.3% worse off and 53.3% about the same.
Contrary to other recent polling, this result gives Bill Shorten a clear lead on preferred prime minister of 57.2-42.8, with the important methodological distinction that respondents to this poll were not allowed an “uncommitted” option. Questions on leadership approval provide more evidence of Tony Abbott’s ongoing improvement, while Bill Shorten’s “satisfactory” result is up at the expense of both favourable and unfavourable responses. A three-way question on who has done the best job promoting the budget finds only 11.7% favouring Tony Abbott, with the rest divided between Joe Hockey (44.8%) and Scott Morrison (43.4%). Full results here.
[I imagine it’s quite difficult to lead a club somewhat immersed in Perth’s illicit drug scene. I don’t blame Judd for bailing.]
Much less so than Collingwood / Collingwood players have been of recent years. but obviously you are either a victorian or a carlton supporter or both, so you’d have the kind of understanding of fair play that would play a sheffield shield final in Hobart when the rules didn’t allow for it. IE cheating. You’d probably defend essendon cheating as well.
We need to re-think our policies in relation to refugees. Fear has led us to the militarisation of the civil domain; the suppression of the rile of law; the adoption of secrecy in public administration; and to the use of arbitrary violence, imprisonment and torture for political reasons.
We need to re-think our policies in relation to the use of indentured guest workers and the recruitment of temporary labour in general as alternatives to the permanent settlement of displaced persons.
We need to give up policies of shame – policies that give rise to denial, suppression, anger and fear.
Sohar
The moneybags at Carlton wanted Ratten gone. Fairly or unfairly. The best thing for Ratten was to expand his horizons. No idea if he would even go back to Carlton.
confessions:
When I did mention the asylum seeker issue in the past I was condemned
When I posted links in relation to the Human Rights Commission report there was no interest here (given many, including yourself, think mandatory detention is good policy)
When I posted links to the Moss Review and highlighted the fact that at the very time the government had their own independent report corroborating the Human Rights Commission report they still went about discrediting the HRC report on the grounds of the timing of it (rather than- or indeed to avoid having to address- the substance).
There is near unanimous support for mandatory detention here (dewey eyed Whitlamitvs that you all are!).
If there is interest to discuss the issue, I am very much up for it.
[ paaptsef:
You obvisouly haven’t been around much then.
Just a few days ago we had a protracted discussion on the topic at which time I asked for about the 5th or 6th time whether anyone here had changed their views on mandatory detention (given the overwhelming majority of ALP supporters here are very much pro mandatory detention……including zoomster a former candidate for example).
I was very pleased to see a few admit to changing their view.
Lets hope more do too. Interesting to see what happens with the court case questioning the legality of detention. ]
I must also have missed what you had to say about the policy of forcing asylum seekers into life boats and entrusting them to the ocean. No doubt you have been absolutely scathing?
[Expat Follower
….Just on mandatory detention of undocumented arrivals, Happiness, are you really against the principle of this or is it restricted to how we seem to have gotten it horribly wrong in terms of execution?]
Very much against it as a matter of principle.
I think Australia should be compassionate in how we treat people, particularly children.
[“You obviously don’t have much to do with new mothers, who will deeply resent Abbott for undermining their conditions of employment.”]
Will the majority who only get Labors minimum wage system think those on high pay who get to double dip is fair?
Or do you think they will be happy mothers on $150K a year paid their full wage by their employer and then double dipping the taxpayer for a top up is fair?
briefly, well said… but i’m wondering if people believe that the principle of detaining undocumented arrivals at all is wrong. Surely it is appropriate, but i agree with you that this militarised cruel offshore model we seem to have settled on is unnecessarily inhumane
[but obviously you are either a victorian or a carlton supporter]
I’m a Blues fan, always have been. But I’m also a West Australian who has lived through the news reports and court reports of WCE player after WCE player linked with outlaw bikies, illicit drugs, violence, and every other sundry issue that ultimately relates back to the drug scene.
And given that, as I said before, I don’t blame Judd for bailing.
Here is a reminder of a previous post (or perhaps it was more than 1):
[Will Australians keep forgetting the kids?
1. Australian paediatricians consider mandatory detention child abuse
2. The Australian Medical Association considers mandatory detention child abuse
3. The Human Rights Commission Report (The Forgotten Children) has documented hundreds of reports of child abuse (physical and sexual) and reports ubiquitous psychological abuse
4. The United Nations Commissioner considers mandatory abuse to be torture
5. The Government accused Save the Children of making up or encouraging asylum seekers to make reports of sexual abuse- the Deparments own report (Moss Report) debunks those allegations .
6. The Moss Report indeed found cases of physical and sexual assault were NOT being report. In other words reports were underestimating the horror- the exact opposite of the original allegations.
Will Australians change their views?
Has anyone on PB changed their views or are you in full support of Scott Morrisson’s positions still?
1. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2014/201/7/australias-treatment-refugee-and-asylum-seeker-children-views-australian
2. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/mandatory-detention-of-asylum-seekers-like-child-abuse-ama-tells-inquiry/story-fn9hm1gu-1226146845917
3. https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/publications/forgotten-children-national-inquiry-children
4. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-09/un-report-finds-australias-asylum-seeker-policies/6291174
5. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-07/report-into-allegations-of-abuse-on-nauru-disturbing/6287966
6. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-20/no-evidence-charity-workers-lied-about-nauru-assaults-report/6336446%5D
[ Mod Lib seemed to be really worried about the fate of seaborne Asylum seekers ]
Its Liberal, it Lies.
[given many, including yourself, think mandatory detention is good policy]
Mandatory detention is necessary, at least while people’s claims and health status can be verified. I don’t think anyone is opposed to this.
But what would be best is what Labor tried to do in govt: move towards regional processing.
[Expat Follower
Posted Friday, May 15, 2015 at 9:39 pm | PERMALINK
briefly, well said… but i’m wondering if people believe that the principle of detaining undocumented arrivals at all is wrong. Surely it is appropriate, but i agree with you that this militarised cruel offshore model we seem to have settled on is unnecessarily inhumane]
Australia and Malta are the only two countries that use Mandatory detention of people arriving by boat.
Australia doesn’t necessarily detain people arriving by plane and seeking asylum, just boats.
That is because the populace is petrified by people arriving by boats (despite the total number of people arriving into Australian territory by boat over the last 40 years is about the same number as cross the Jordanian border in a single day)
When Leigh Sales asked Bill Shorten on Thursday night how he was going to pay for the promises he made in his budget reply speech, Bill dodged the question. Well, why shouldn’t he? Politicians do that. But the answer he should have given was: The same way governments pay for anything. They credit our bank accounts with money the Reserve Bank creates out of thin air.
http://theaimn.com/the-mystery-of-money-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-about-debt-and-deficits/
fess @ 857
[There hasn’t been a more incompetent federal govt in my lifetime than the one we currently have.]
The important thing is that this view is not just left of centre- it seems to be spreading well into those who will vote Liberal always because they are terrified of the alternative.
Which is why I am pretty certain the Libs would lose if they rushed to an early election, will lose anyway under Abbott whenever the next election is held and would probably lose under another leader unless the new leader was able to clean out at least a third of the Cabinet which is underperforming. And I doubt the latter is possible because of the power of the factions in the Coalition.
The voting public can be quite tolerant, even sneakily admiring, of a new government which progresses with a sense of purpose and competence, even though they do very unpopular things. There is little tolerance for stupidity and incompetence. Some people think that Whitlam’s government was less competent – unfairly in my view. But nobody comments on any government in-between as more incompetent and utterly useless as this one.
Today’s Mumble still sees the coalition as favourites to win the next election, even an early election as the pundits have predicted with the framing of the budget:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/mumble-who-would-be-the-big-winners-from-an-early-election/story-e6frg6zo-1227356053290
[regional processing.]
Haha 🙂
I can see how you justify this to yourself now….the much vaunted regional solution (also known as rendition)
[Mandatory detention is necessary, at least while people’s claims and health status can be verified. I don’t think anyone is opposed to this.]
I think mandatory detention is an awful policy and made even more awful when the detention is so cruel as to cause death, suicide mental injury and self harm.
If mandatory detention could be made reasonable so as to exclude those outcomes it is still terrible but noone, especially the greens have a sensible preferable alternative.
[The only thing Mark Kenny doesn’t mention in your linked article is date of next challenge on Tony’s leadership]
Given the now well-documented inability of the Parliamentary Liberal Party to organise a piss-up in a brewery, that is understandable.
[Haha 🙂
I can see how you justify this to yourself now….the much vaunted regional solution (also known as rendition)]
That is just stupid because the only possible sustainable humane solution needs regional and global agreement.
[ABC News 24 @ABCNews24 14s14 seconds ago
8000 refugees stranded off #Thailand, #Indonesia & #Malaysia as the nations take a hard line. @George_Roberts reports on #theworld @bevvo14
]
8000 people being left to die by the turn back the boats policy. Doesn’t seem so humane all of a sudden does it?
ModLib
[(given the overwhelming majority of ALP supporters here are very much pro mandatory detention……including zoomster a former candidate for example).]
Slightly misleading. By this measure, you are, too, as you support compulsory health and identity checks, which involve some form of mandatory detention.
I am anti Nauru and Manus. I am pro offshore processing, as part of a regional solution.
I am not ridiculing a regional solution, I am ridiculing those that think rendition to Malaysia, or any other country, is “a regional solution”.
Thankfully, the High Court is hearing a case to determine the legality of the entire offshore mandatory detention policies…….having protected vulnerable people from the ALP policy of Malaysian rendition.
On asylum seekers.
Abbott wants to export our model to Europe, and now we find that our “leadership” on this issue is having knock-on effects throughout our own region. The focus on deaths at sea is narrow, shallow, simplistic and used as a cover for our selfish desire not to be confronted by the suffering of others.
The suffering simply occurs somewhere else. If not on our borders, then in our camps, if not in our camps, then in transit countries, if not in those countries, then on their borders, if not on their borders, then?
[I am not ridiculing a regional solution, I am ridiculing those that think rendition to Malaysia, or any other country, is “a regional solution”]
It was a couple of steps in the right direction. Certainly much much better than the direction we have gone.
[zoomster
…ModLib
(given the overwhelming majority of ALP supporters here are very much pro mandatory detention……including zoomster a former candidate for example).
Slightly misleading. By this measure, you are, too, as you support compulsory health and identity checks, which involve some form of mandatory detention.]
They don’t require prolonged mandatory detention, indeed they don’t require detention at all (Fraser didn’t lock people up in repulsive camps, it was Keating that introduced the policy of mandatory detention).
[I am anti Nauru and Manus. I am pro offshore processing, as part of a regional solution.]
You are anti Nauru and Manus but pro Malaysian rendition (and I can’t remember your view of sending folk to Cambodia….just remind me of that again?????)
Briefly @902: ++++1
[DisplayName
….Abbott wants to export our model to Europe, and now we find that our “leadership” on this issue is having knock-on effects throughout our own region. The focus on deaths at sea is narrow, shallow, simplistic and used as a cover for our selfish desire not to be confronted by the suffering of others.
The suffering simply occurs somewhere else. If not on our borders, then in our camps, if not in our camps, then in transit countries, if not in those countries, then on their borders, if not on their borders, then?]
BINGO!
Well said.
..I certainly have never supported ‘Scott Morrison’s views’ but that’s not a change of heart.
[having protected vulnerable people from the ALP policy of Malaysian rendition.]
The High Court didn’t act to protect anybody. They enforced the law as they interpreted it; they didn’t make a value judgement about the policy.
Happiness, the kiddie angle is especially heart-rendering. We had Villawood as far back as the 70s which i’m sure was no picnic but never created the current levels of outrage (and i concede that this could be because noone gave a damn). My point is we (and most countries) detain undocumented arrivals in some way or another. Am curious as to a practical alternative that is a combination of (a) humane, (b) effective in deporting queue jumpers and undesirables, and (c) does not signal Aus as an ‘easy mark’ destination of choice.
can one achieve all three outcomes? or must one compromise one or two in order to guarantee a second or third… not saying it such would be wrong, just asking if we can avoid going there?
[I can see how you justify this to yourself now….the much vaunted regional solution (also known as rendition)]
Yes, that same regional solution which would’ve seen people living and working in the community in which they are living, not imprisoned indefinitely on Nauru and PNG.
Both those countries as it happens are signatories to the refugee convention. For me it keeps coming back to the brokenness of the convention and to the system at a macro level, not petty partisan arguments the likes of you want to engage with.
[ I can see how you justify this to yourself now….the much vaunted regional solution (also known as rendition) ]
Actually, the only party that does do or propose rendition are the Libs. None of the regional proposals put by the ALP were anything like it unless your the kind of moron that defines rendition as sending someone back to a country they have gone too that isn’t the one they are fleeing.
But much surprisiment, you are that kind of moron. And being a Liberal, will fall back on BOATS!! BOO!! anytime things get tricky.
[Fraser didn’t lock people up in repulsive camps]
He didn’t need to, they had been processed in camps before they came here.
Refugees who come to Australia from UNHCR camps don’t undergo mandatory detention for the same reasons – the health and identity checks have already been carried out overseas.
[ having protected vulnerable people from the ALP policy of Malaysian rendition ]
They can cane Adults who break the law there. Much better to send people to Cambodia where teachers can can children who displease them
[I am not ridiculing a regional solution, I am ridiculing those that think rendition to Malaysia, or any other country, is “a regional solution”.]
What Labor proposed in govt was way better than what we have now.
Why is it that you were so quick to pour shit on the Malaysia agreement, but have said nowt about the Liberal party’s choice for deterring boat arrivals?
can cane children who displease them
Anti Camodia because the guarantees about education, health, employment and rights which were part of the Malaysian agreement (and approved of by the UNHCR, which also noted that conditions for ALL refugees in Malaysia were improved as a result) do not appear to be in place.
[zoomster
Posted Friday, May 15, 2015 at 9:55 pm | PERMALINK
..I certainly have never supported ‘Scott Morrison’s views’ but that’s not a change of heart.]
Oh but you have…..very much so.
Not to mention Senator Fielding from Family First.
Also, not to mention Andrew Bolt.
For it was Bolt and the Family First Senator that propounded the first iteration of the Malaysian solution which you support.
You support the Morrison contention that we need to be cruel to be kind and hence you support mandatory detention and offshore processing.
Many here pretend to detest Morrison for very effectively propounding the self-same policies you claim to support……you just don’t like the way he agrees with you, eh?
[zoomster
….The High Court didn’t act to protect anybody. They enforced the law as they interpreted it; they didn’t make a value judgement about the policy.]
Oh they very much DID protect people.
You just don’t like to be the sort of person the High Court had to protect people FROM!!!!
The ALP government then changed the law to remove the mention in the law that the government had to take consideration of the people’s safety and wellbeing.
Absolutely disgusting (and it won the LNP support which is equally disgusting).
Not a peep out of anyone here when the ALP changed legislation to remove all mention of having to look after people’s interests.
Interesting, that, isn’t it? Given how you convince yourselves that you are fighters for justice and freedom!
You are just fighters for your footy team, with any sense of fighting for a cause long since forgotten…..just as the children have been forgotten in all of this.
imacca@911
Yes, if it was genuine, it would spend all its time attempting to persuade its fellow Libs.
But it doesn’t. Q.E.D. 👿
Why is it that countries can continue to be regarded as signatories to the refugee convention even when their own democratic systems have effectively legislated in ways that contravene the principles of the convention?
It kind of debases the notion of a convention in the first place.
[Expat Follower
…Am curious as to a practical alternative that is a combination of (a) humane, (b) effective in deporting queue jumpers and undesirables, and (c) does not signal Aus as an ‘easy mark’ destination of choice.
can one achieve all three outcomes? or must one compromise one or two in order to guarantee a second or third… not saying it such would be wrong, just asking if we can avoid going there?]
Mandatory health and security checks (takes a few days for health checks)
Let people live in the community while this is happening
Stop spending >$500k per person per year (2014 figures) to detain people on Nauru (a system which the HRC has shown leads to child abuse)
a) humane tick
b) deporting queue jumpers: there is no effective queue. We should decouple offshore refugee intake from onshore refugee intake so that people arriving by boat are not delaying people coming from UNHCR camps getting a spot
c) the ALP and LNP Ministers for Immigration (Bowen and Morrison) both testified on oath to the Human Rights Commission recently that mandatory detention in offshore centres does NOT deter boats, so there is no reason for a policy of institutionalised child abuse IMO
This is the amazing moment a lifeboat was launched from a staggering 201ft (61.53 metres) into the water, breaking the world record for the highest free-falling drop.
The new model has been created for oil rigs and off shore buildings so that workers can climb aboard and be dropped to safety in the event of an emergency.
The GES50 MK III was designed to fall from 154ft, but during the test drop it was hurled from the top of a crane, giving it a much greater height to ensure it was safe.
Scroll down to watch!
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243479/Just-200ft-drop-ocean-Record-breaking-lifeboat-designed-oil-rigs-launch-sea-great-heights.html#ixzz3aCy1B4wS
[“But what would be best is what Labor tried to do in govt: move towards regional processing.”]
What are you on about. We have regional processing NOW.
“Regional Processing Framework” were great buzzwords, but Morrison has actually put them into action.
[confessions
…It kind of debases the notion of a convention in the first place.]
I completely agree.
Australia should officially withdraw from the Convention on the rights of the child given we don’t believe in protecting children (at least most here don’t)
Australia should also officially withdraw from the Convention against torture (given the UN Commissioner has also condemned the policies- self same ones confessions and zoomster are supporting above- as examples of torture).
paaptsef
Scrott Morrison would have loved those.
I note that ModLib has graduated from writing crap to writing outright untruths.
And all of this was in her attempt to justify and support the various claims of various Abbotteers to attend various friends’ and colleagues’ weddings at taxpayers’ expense, and Randall’s trip from his Perth electorate to north Qld on electorate business.
Keep twisting and turning Moddy, exposing your lack of integrity.
psyclaw:
As you can probably imagine, I’m OK with you questioning my integrity.
You and I both know the truth about whether or not you were aware of the scheme about which we have oft sparred, eh? Don’t we old chum?
:devil:
[Australia should officially withdraw from the Convention on the rights of the child given we don’t believe in protecting children (at least most here don’t)
Australia should also officially withdraw from the Convention against torture]
Actually this idea holds merit. Perhaps if more developed countries adopted this action we might see more meaningful UN responses to those issues.
I don’t hold my breath, but still.
Briefly @846:
[The main problem with aiming for a budget surplus is that it is absolutely inconsistent with full employment unless the private sector undertakes secular dis-saving (lets its savings rate decline and remain at a much lower rate). We have negative net national savings. As long as the private sector maintains its savings rate, the deficit will accrue in the public accounts. This is an axiomatic result.
Since private indebtedness is at historically very elevated levels, it is just not likely that the private sector will start to dis-save (unless there is a recession). Consequently, we have to expect public deficits. We should plan for this instead of deluding ourselves into thinking that deficits can be “repealed” by cutting spending or raising taxes.
Instead of trying to abolish the deficits in either the private or the public sectors, we MUST increase our rate of income growth such that the rate of growth in real per capita disposable income starts to match (or exceed) the rate of growth in real per capita net debt service commitments.
We ask ourselves how to cut our deficits. This is the wrong question. We should ask ourselves how we can increase our income.
There is one and only one way to do this. That is to foster investment – new capital formation – in real assets. We must fix our income. We must fix investment. We must start to ask ourselves the right questions!!]
I know all of that…I was merely pointing out that even by his own metric, Hockey’s an abysmal Treasurer.
I already knew he was abysmal (is there an adjective for “even worse than abysmal”?) by any reality-based measure.
ModLib
[Many here pretend to detest Morrison for very effectively propounding the self-same policies you claim to support……you just don’t like the way he agrees with you, eh?]
What bollocks.
I don’t support Nauru and Manus – or Cambodia – because they are unnecessarily inhumane.
The Malaysian solution wasn’t. It wasn’t going to be the kind of closed shop Nauru and Manus had become; the UNHCR was to be involved in the ongoing monitoring of conditions. Children were guaranteed education (whereas Morrison is threatening to close down schools), health services, etc etc.
I don’t know what Bolt et al proposed (and I’m not interested). I doubt it had much in common with Labor’s plan, but I dare say it had enough superficial likenesses for you to make your claim. I haven’t found you a totally reliable source in the past.
The UNHCR felt that Malaysia was worth a try. I’d rate them above Morrison any day.
[Oh they very much DID protect people.]
I repeat: it wasn’t their intention.
They were simply interpreting the law (which, incidentally, turned out not to mean what its drafers intended, so it can’t be claimed that the law was meant to protect anyone, either).
You are attributing motives to the High Court which it didn’t have. It’s OK to say that the consequence was that refugees didn’t get sent to Malaysia, but not that the HC ruled against Malaysia on the grounds that they were protecting refugees.