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.
Asylum Seekers are processed in the region and resettled in the region.
This is what the left called for. Delivered by Scott Morrison and Dutton.
ModLib
[Mandatory health and security checks (takes a few days for health checks)
Let people live in the community while this is happening]
Oh goody. So it turns out they have ebola, and they’ve been living in the community for a few days.
Brilliant.
ModLib
[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).]
I do not support Nauru or Manus. The government you constantly defend here does.
[zoomster
…I haven’t found you a totally reliable source in the past.]
It is interesting that you continue to engage in these slurs, having never provided any evidence to support such claims.
I, on the other hand, do have evidence of your behaviour:
[zoomster
Posted Saturday, October 12, 2013 at 8:36 am | PERMALINK
ModLib has stated a couple of times now that the only reason she comes here is to win arguments.
This is, of course, one of the reasons I genuinely despise ModLib – most of us are here to share information, and to learn.]
and
[zoomster
Posted Saturday, October 12, 2013 at 9:58 am | PERMALINK
psyclaw
one minute ModLib is a cancer researcher (but doesn’t appear to recognise a reference to one of the most prominent researchers in the field in Australia, and possibly the world).
One minute ModLib is running health checks.
One minute ModLib is assessing medical students to see if they’re fit to be doctors.
The next, ModLib admits to be so low level that they don’t rate a invite to a visit by the Health Minister (I’ve been to shindigs like that, anyone who is anyone is there…)
Diog has apparently caught ModLib out demonstrating ignorance on a fairly run of the mill medical procedure.
But what the hey – if ModLib wants to pretend to be more important than he actually is to impress the peasants, why shouldn’t he be indulged in his little fantasy?]
and
[zoomster
Posted Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 9:34 pm | PERMALINK
…and you know why I checked the link ML so thoughtfully provided?
Because I know that ML isn’t an honest broker.]
Happiness @923:
[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.]
As opposed to the well-thought-out humanity inherent to Cambodian rendition? Yes, truly the Liberal Party is streets ahead of the ALP in the compassion stakes.
/sarcasm
“In a 6-1 decision, the court said Malaysia did not have laws in place to ensure the safety of asylum seekers.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218
[“I do not support Nauru or Manus. The government you constantly defend here does.”]
So does Labor.
Actually Labor opened Manus Island(closed by Howard due to lack of clientele) and reopened Nauru.
What astounds me is that Malaysia is a non signatory of the UNHCR Refugee Convention and whips Asylum Seekers, but apparantly it’s a great place to send them cos Gillard needed to look like she was doing something.
By the way… what happened to the East Timor Solution… the one Gillard took to the 2010 Election? Remember that one?
You used to be fair, ModLib. We disagreed, but you acknowledged that my position was my own, and well intentioned, on a number of occasions.
I’m disappointed that you appear to be playing partisan games now.
Thought you were better than that; obviously I’ve been mistaken in you.
[Matt
…As opposed to the well-thought-out humanity inherent to Cambodian rendition? Yes, truly the Liberal Party is streets ahead of the ALP in the compassion stakes.]
No, I think sending these vulnerable people to Cambodia, a very poor country with its own development needs is absolutely appalling.
Zoomster, on the other hand, has no problem with it if the kids can go to school there and the folks are allowed to get jobs (they might be $2 per day, but hey, who cares about workers rights when there is a vote for her party in it) apparently.
Do we know if all the lifeboats we forced Asylum seekers in to made it to land or is that a secret held by the Libs sixty six spin doctors
Oh dear, ModLib.
Firstly, it’s touching how you cherish my words. I couldn’t be bothered. I suppose that’s because I’m comfortable enough in my own beliefs that I’m not obsessive about whether others disagree with me. I don’t need their approbation.
Secondly, in response to me saying I don’t trust you as a source, you quote previous examples of me saying I don’t trust you as a source. Well, der.
As for evidence, I’ve provided heaps of it in the past. Why, only last week, you provided a post where every link of the several you listed was out of date. When I pointed that out (I didn’t dispute what you were claiming) you got abusive.
It seems you care far much about my opinion of you than I do your opinion of me!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scott-morrison-has-66-spin-doctors-20140301-33sqv.html
guess I missed Mod Lib’s outraged comments about this
[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)]
Not sure i am one with TBA here, but to play devil’s advocate… letting people live in the community will work for the vast majority who pose no problem, but its those who would pose a problem and would disappear at the first opportunity that the system has to be seen to prevent effectively. And we simply dont know who is who at the outset. Either there is a way to do both, or what i’m hearing is a preference towards treating everyone humanely over and above competing principles of keeping the Aus community safe and system integrity maintained?
Is there a way where competition between these principles can be minimised (must they be in competition)? I think letting everyone live in the community on the assumption that people will voluntarily present themselves for deportation if found to pose a threat/risk or have no refugee claim is a tad utopian?
[Zoomster, on the other hand, has no problem with it..]
Obviously I do, if I’ve said I’m anti.
Both parties know why they support various offshore processing policies. It is because the Australian people are inherently racist.
leftwingpinko
The Greens also support offshore processing, as they support a regional solution.
[there is no effective queue]
Tell that to people sitting in the camps with no funds to get out.
[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]
There are decoupled. But you are suggesting the offshore intake is limited and the onshore intake unlimited. How do you then manage the unknown costs of the onshore intake? Do you refuse them funds while they wait in the community for their claims to be processed?
Happiness/Mod Lib – I’ve said this to you before but as a Liberal you have no credibility on this issue. I’ve never seen you criticise this government’s abominable treatment of refugees up to and including its denial of its basic duty to children. You exist only to score partisan points against the ALP and against PBers for whom this is a genuinely gut-wrenchingly difficult issue to grapple with.And before you go casting your usual sly aspersions on me, I support on-shore and in-community processing of refugees subject to a preliminary health check. Your conduct is contemptible and pathetic.
LeftWingPinko
[Both parties know why they support various offshore processing policies. It is because the Australian people are inherently racist.]
I think that is a fair assessment although I would qualify it to say that “many Australian people are inherently racist”.
Where the parties differ though is that it is only the LNP that has a recent history of whipping up the racist sentiment of Australians for their own advantage.
952
We do not detain people who arrive by regular means in case they fail extensive health or security checks. Infectious diseases, including Ebola, can be carried by ordinary travellers. Criminals can also appear be ordinary travellers because of forged passports.
Its not much of an argument to say “your side is just as bad as (or marginally worse than) mine” in handling this issue, but calling it contemptible is a bit of a reach. A fair few ALP supporters here would also be contemptible by that standard.
Many non-partisans would agree that Rudd/Gilliard’s handling of this issue has been wretched… that by no means suggests that Morrisson is right or better. Both sides suck eggs on this and have been less than honourable. Is this a fair statement?
938
Happiness
If you really want to achieve change in relation to refugee policy, you’re going to have to stop using the issue as a stick with which to beat your opponents.
[It is because the Australian people are inherently racist.]
Many no doubt are, but many are simply selfish….myopic protectionists.
[Expat Follower
….Both sides suck eggs on this and have been less than honourable. Is this a fair statement?]
Damn straight it is.
Best of luck getting much support for that contention from those who seek to score partisan points on this issue!
[Both parties know why they support various offshore processing policies. It is because the Australian people are inherently racist.
I think that is a fair assessment although I would qualify it to say that “many Australian people are inherently racist”.]
Granted.
I’d throw in another qualification – human beings are inherently racist.
I don’t think Australians are more racist than other humans.
EF
The difference is that, w.r.t. this matter, the Coalition are competent and united in their evil while Labor are incompetent and divided in their evil.
And because I am a partisan Labor hack, I refer to Labor as such in the nicest possible way, of course.
[zoomster
….Oh dear, ModLib.
Firstly, it’s touching how you cherish my words. I couldn’t be bothered. I suppose that’s because I’m comfortable enough in my own beliefs that I’m not obsessive about whether others disagree with me. I don’t need their approbation.]
I don’t worry about people disagreeing with me either (hence my being here on PB!!!)
:devil:
….but you miss the point. You say you are comfortable in your own beliefs. Fine. Are you comfortable with your own petty hatreds “I despise you” or your own petty slurs (see the sordid trail of slurs against me).
I know you think of yourself as a moral bastion. Hence my keeping a list of your slurs against me to remind you of your own behaviour.
[zoomster
….Secondly, in response to me saying I don’t trust you as a source, you quote previous examples of me saying I don’t trust you as a source. Well, der.]
Yes, I said that you had a history of slurs, and I provided that history. “Well, der.” I guess!
What you have not done (and I see you are avoiding it again) is to provide any evidence that I have said anything incorrect……this “Oh I did it the other day” stuff is just laughable!
both sides only care about who get’s what for their mates (i.e. Asylum Seeker contracts etc).
never ever forget what the 33rd Morrison spin doctor said
ModLib
[Best of luck getting much support for that contention from those who seek to score partisan points on this issue!]
You do realise that, if I were purely being partisan, I would support Manus/Nauru (although not necessarily Morrison’s interpretation of it).
The fact that I don’t – and most Labor inclined posters on here don’t seem to, either – suggests that it’s not partisan.
[Expat Follower
…..Not sure i am one with TBA here, but to play devil’s advocate… letting people live in the community will work for the vast majority who pose no problem, but its those who would pose a problem and would disappear at the first opportunity that the system has to be seen to prevent effectively. And we simply dont know who is who at the outset. Either there is a way to do both, or what i’m hearing is a preference towards treating everyone humanely over and above competing principles of keeping the Aus community safe and system integrity maintained?]
There is no evidence of risk from people arriving here by boat. The risk is overblown.
[Is there a way where competition between these principles can be minimised (must they be in competition)? I think letting everyone live in the community on the assumption that people will voluntarily present themselves for deportation if found to pose a threat/risk or have no refugee claim is a tad utopian?]
Why is it that other countries can do it- only Australia and Malta have a mandatory detention policy.
Why is it that folk arriving by plane are not necessarily sent to mandatory detention centres? If the concern is flight, surely those coming on a flight should be locked up too!!!!
The point is that we aren’t panicked about flight arrivals, just people arriving by boat.
Did you know that MORE people have arrived on flights seeking asylum than boats? Why aren’t we petrified of them?*
*a little hint: consider their religion and you might have an answer….
[zoomster
….I do not support Nauru or Manus. The government you constantly defend here does.]
Notice the nice little play on words here?
Because I have ever defended some aspects of the current governments approach against the rabid hatred of Abbott here, that means I somehow tacitly support one particular policy (which I have steadfastly opposed since from my first post here so many years ago)?
Another example of zoomster in action I guess!
[Why is it that folk arriving by plane are not necessarily sent to mandatory detention centres?]
Because they have a visa and passport and can therefore be identified in some way.
Displayname – thats an interesting argument. And may i ask, so what? If the result is nonetheless ‘evil’ or something in that direction?
Maybe what you’re saying is that there is relative hope for the ALP but not for the Coalition on this issue. Incompetence, divided, being seen to do something that is in reality totally wretched… these are hardly great points of encouragement.
Funnily enough, the position Happiness advocates on this particular issue is probably nearest to the Greens isnt it?
[ Did you know that MORE people have arrived on flights seeking asylum than boats? Why aren’t we petrified of them?* ]
That wasn’t something the real Mod Lib ever worried about
[Expat Follower
….Funnily enough, the position Happiness advocates on this particular issue is probably nearest to the Greens isnt it?]
Yep. even the Greens can get something right every now and then!
The difference between the Greens and the ALP is that the Greens actually believe the progressive views they profess.
The ALP just use them to advance their preferential vote result, which is all that matters (“Whatever it takes” and all that).
EF
[the position Happiness advocates on this particular issue is probably nearest to the Greens isnt it?]
And Clive Palmer.
ModLib
[Are you comfortable with your own petty hatreds “I despise you” or your own petty slurs (see the sordid trail of slurs against me).]
Absolutely. Based on evidence. I’m big on that.
[I know you think of yourself as a moral bastion]
Well, you’d be wrong then.
I don’t regard myself as any more moral than the next person.
[Hence my keeping a list of your slurs against me to remind you of your own behaviour.]
I don’t need to be reminded what I think of you. You’re quite happy slurring people yourself, as evinced by some of your misleading representations of my positions tonight.
[What you have not done (and I see you are avoiding it again) is to provide any evidence that I have said anything incorrect……]
I’m sorry, but my lack of real interest in you means that I don’t keep detailed records of your past misdeeds, or even try and retain them in my memory.
I do remember a number of occasions where you misused sources. On a couple of them, you even admitted as such — and then promptly did it again. (Which is why I said that I despised you, btw).
You do seem a little obsessed with me, don’t you? After all, you deliberately drew me into the discussion tonight, singling me out not once but several times, and you have kept that touching list of my misdeeds.
I’m flattered my opinion counts so much.
Expat Follower @ 971 – putting aside that it was in fact the rhetoric and behaviour of Mod Lib/Happiness that I was calling contemptible, I do in fact agree that Labor’s record on this issue poor. However, its official intention in 2007 was to introduce a much more humane system of handling refugees. A mixture of an increase in regional conflict and the Coalition’s ruthless, immoral and inflammatory conduct that drove Labor to panic and to attempt to be harsher. But even at it’s harshest, Labor attempted to abide by international law. This is not to excuse Labor’s conduct but I do think it’s fair to say that the Coalition has been far worse, given it’s routine denial of care to vulnerable refugees and its continuing exposure of them to harsh treatment and inhumane living conditions on Manus and Nauru. This government has openly stated that its goal is to wear them out in the hope they’ll give up and go home. That’s abominable.
[Vulnerable people are again being made into a football to be kicked around in the interests of partisan politics. This is despite the facts and the best values of our society]
And Petro Georgiou
EF
[And may i ask, so what?]
A perfectly good question. The answer is that, in the present, nothing.
[If the result is nonetheless ‘evil’ or something in that direction? ]
Exactly.
[Maybe what you’re saying is that there is relative hope for the ALP but not for the Coalition on this issue.]
In purely mechanical terms, it will likely take longer to redeem the Coalition than Labor. Though as you point out …
[ these are hardly great points of encouragement. ]
Correct.
[Funnily enough, the position Happiness advocates on this particular issue is probably nearest to the Greens isnt it?]
Yes.
Happiness – as confessions says, getting on a plane to Aus without a valid visa or even a passport is pretty tough? But if you manage to do it then i cant see any reason why you should be treated any differently to a boat person of similar undocumented standing. Please note that i am confining myself to treatment of undocumented arrivals, not all arrivals. I am not aware of anyone arguing that a documented arrival should be mandatorily detained whether they arrive by air or by boat?
[zoomster
….I don’t need to be reminded what I think of you. You’re quite happy slurring people yourself, as evinced by some of your misleading representations of my positions tonight.]
Which misleading representation of your position tonight?
Given the proximity, would be easy for you to provide the specific post.
[I’m sorry, but my lack of real interest in you means that I don’t keep detailed records of your past misdeeds, or even try and retain them in my memory.]
You don’t need to keep detailed records or memorise everything……but you DO need to provide a specific post if you question my integrity.
Well, at least in the world I live in, that is what decent folk do. I have come to understand that PB is an alternate universe…..so be it!
[And Petro Georgiou]
Sorely missed, as were the others of his ilk in the Liberal Party.
[983
Happiness
Expat Follower
….Funnily enough, the position Happiness advocates on this particular issue is probably nearest to the Greens isnt it?
Yep. even the Greens can get something right every now and then!]
Alright then, can I take that as a cast-iron pledge on your part to vote Green at next federal election, given you agree with their refugee policy and, you know, allegedly care about this issue much?
Otherwise, like I said, you have no credibility.
ModLib
[Which misleading representation of your position tonight?]
Don’t be twee. Most of my responses tonight have been to correct statements you made about me.
[You don’t need to keep detailed records or memorise everything……but you DO need to provide a specific post if you question my integrity.]
I do at the time, but I don’t then retain the info.
Surely you’ve kept a list!
(You seem to have so many, ready to go — even if they’re out of date, like the one you used last week).
[Expat Follower
Posted Friday, May 15, 2015 at 11:08 pm | PERMALINK
Happiness – as confessions says, getting on a plane to Aus without a valid visa or even a passport is pretty tough? But if you manage to do it then i cant see any reason why you should be treated any differently to a boat person of similar undocumented standing. Please note that i am confining myself to treatment of undocumented arrivals, not all arrivals. I am not aware of anyone arguing that a documented arrival should be mandatorily detained whether they arrive by air or by boat?]
People who have been assessed as refugees and can’t be bothered waiting and get on a boat and arrive in Australian jurisdiction are sent to Nauru.
Ridiculously, a refugee housed on Nauru who is sent to Australia for medical treatment is not given a visa on arrival so when the medical treatment is finished they are deported back to Nauru as undocumented arrivals (even though it is the Australian government that brings them here!)
A baby born in Australia to a mother without a visa is not permitted into Australia. The Australian government considers the mothers uterus to be a people smuggler and the child is an “illegal maritime arrival”.
The whole thing is ridiculous, costs $500k per person per year in Nauru and has left to countless episodes of child abuse.
Its time this policy ended.
zoomster:
I know you think that you have corrected statements from me tonight but you haven’t.
You said that the High Court had not protected people and I linked a media report of same which specifically said that the High Court had protected people from the ALP policy.
You said that you were against offshore detention in Cambodia as there were no protections for school and employment outcomes, so I pointed out that we disagree as I think it is abhorrent for a country like Australia to send poor vulnerable people to a developing country (even if there were schools and jobs for the asylum seeker as what impact would that have on the local people?).
Again, if you think there are numerous examples of me posting something that isn’t true, provide an example…..tonight…..last week……whenever.
Oh well Happiness, at least giving Billions to the worst polluters while continuing to pay compensation for the carbon price will get you to criticise the Libs one day, even if dumping humans in lifeboats wont