James J in comments relates that the latest Newspoll result has Labor’s two-party lead at 53-47, up from 52-48 a fortnight ago, from primary votes of 40% for the Coalition (steady), 39% for Labor (up two) and 12% for the Greens (down one). However, Bill Shorten’s personal ratings have slumped again, with approval down one to 27% and disapproval up five to 59%, while Tony Abbott’s are unchanged at 33% and 60%. Abbott has also opened up a 39-36 lead as preferred prime minister, after a tied 39-39 result last time.
This is the second Newspoll for The Australian by Galaxy Research, using a combination of automated phone and online polling. It was conducted from Friday to Sunday, with a sample of 1638. Full tables from The Australian here.
UPDATE (Essential Research): Absolutely no change on voting intention in Essential Research this week, which has Labor leading 52-48 from primary votes of 41% for the Coalition, 38% for Labor and 11% for the Greens. The poll also finds 48% expect the current parliament will run its full term, compared with 25% who expect an early election. Further questions find a strong view in favour of renewable energy over coal, and a belief that the government is excessively favouring the latter. Fifty per cent of respondents were of the view that the government should prioritise renewables over coal versus on 6% for the other way around, with 28% opting that both should be treated equally. When asked an equivalent question about the actual position of the government, the respective results were 12%, 49% and 13%. Respondents also came down heavily in favour of gun control, with only 6% deeming current laws too strong and 45% rating them not strong enough, with 40% opting for “about right”.
@Gary/1180
They lack the Transparency, since joining hips with Abbott goverment.
National Security Legislation (Metadata etc), Welfare legislation (i.e. Green Army – where btw whats the status of that?), ISP website blocking, FOI requests, Commissioners being out of jobs etc.
@ Puff, 1247
In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.
“@YvetteSBerry: @RichardTuffin ACT Labor stands for –
No turn backs, no kids in detention, no locking up people indefinitely & no hiding detention camps.”
Its time..
[ I’m sure there is an order of magnitude of refugees in Indonesia, Malaysia and Sri Lanka willing to accept that offer than Australia would be capable of accepting without significant social disruption.]
And how many people would “without significant social disruption” be? We not even beginning to have a sensible discussion in this country when this question is never actually given a defensible answer.
We already taking what is it, a couple hundred thousand people from overseas, ever year via “regular” means. Is that causing social disruption?
How many “boat people” would actually come if we offered a “regular” arrival process and offered to fly them. Again, there’s no sensible discussion on that number either. Just the fear.
[Get Indonesia to sign the refugee convention and uphold it and then maybe you’ll have a point. Indonesia is not a country of refuge.]
Yeah, that can be promised by Labor and achieved in an instant.
AS, I think you really need to grow up and confront some unpalatable realities.
Refugees are more likely to die aboard people smuggler leaky boats on the way to Australia then if they are turned back in a responsible manner to Indonesia which is a country which is not the country from which the refugees are escaping persecution.
Australians will not support an unlimited inflow of genuine refugees.
There will always be refugees who will take the risk of a people smuggler boat if there is a high enough probability of success.
The vast majority of refugees who took the people smuggler boat trips were not in imminent danger in Indonesia or Malaysia.
So far, your only solution of flying in refugees is impractical and unsustainable.
@ guytaur, 1253
Good to see some people in the ALP still believe human lives aren’t pieces on a chessboard.
Whoa! Whoa! Arrnea S
A bit over the top to cop the moniker of “monster” here from you.
I was aiming to point out that the current AS policy has been the work of two political parties over a period of time – doing what political parties do – compromise.
The next step was to question the pursuit of policy purity (others having made the same point here to you) by using a few examples that came immediately to mind where good and well intentioned people cause death and destruction to others – not because they are “monsters”, but because they are desperately trying to balance a number of competing and conflicting goals.
Your compassion and goodwill towards AS are probably agreed to and admired by many here, but a goodly number of us want a Labor party in government – not in opposition – where it can darn well do a damned sight better job all round than the crew that is in government now.
If this makes me and others “monsters” well I guess I just have to wear it.
Good luck with you crusade.
TPOF
The navy has a history of raping and brutalising new recruits. They are NOT renowned for being warm and fuzzy.
If there is a culture of cruelty in the treatment of AS, then it will be retained, no matter how well intentioned the Minister may be. You clearly have NEVER worked in government.
The idea that the Minister has any influence at all is next to absurd. He/she will be lucky if they are even told of any adverse or embarrassing incidents. These are operational matters boyo and the ministerial impact will be minimal.
It can be changed but it will take years, because once a group of “border protection” officers have developed a behavioural pattern it will stick, for many many years.
would the media let Labor hide behind secrecy and spin doctors like they have the Libs?
@ It’s Time, 1255
“Flying them in” isn’t my solution, letting them fly here is. There’s a difference. One is active, one is passive. Both would put the boats out of commission forever and stop the deaths on the way to Australia, mind you.
And why is it impractical and unsustainable? Because you say so?
Refugees are an investment that pays off – processing and integrating them will create jobs and stimulate the Australian economy. The more that arrive, the more stimulus.
phyl at 1241
[The policy of the major parties to asylum seekers is a response to the perception in Sydney and Melbourne that we are being overrun by Asian immigrants]
The policy of the major parties to asylum seekers who come to Australia without a visa (almost always on unauthorised boats) is about insecurity over our borders. Whether one likes it or not, Howard’s statement that ‘we will decide to comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come’ goes to the heart of public disquiet about unauthorised arrivals.
There is no doubt that there are other undercurrents of concern about certain foreigners, such as Muslims generally, or Chinese buying up all our land and property, but these are different and are responded to in different ways. In these cases there is a very clear divide between Labor and the Coalition. No Labor MP would be permitted to attend a so-called Reclaim rally and still hold their seat in the caucus room.
Diogenes@1242
Yes, go the full LOON.
Oh and on the news, complaints about M1 highway congestion, the solution is to extend the lanes to 4 lanes.
It’s abit like the Asylum Seeker issue.
Too many boats lets use the boats to stop the boats.
@ Tricot, 1257
If you take a policy decision that you know will lead to death when there is another option (however unpalatable to xenophobic voters) that does not involve death, then you are using human lives as political pawns – something that makes you a monster.
[Australians will not support an unlimited inflow of genuine refugees.]
Too often people say that whilst being unwilling to defend any position on how many refugees Australia could or would support.
We’re going to end up as a nation of 50 million people not too far into the future. That’s going to happen mostly because of regular immigration. Its fully contemplatble. Indeed some argue that a higher population means things like better long distance transport links.
Again, we’re not having a proper discussion because it all relies on the fear of being overwhelmed.
We can certainly take several million people over a reasonable time frame, like a decade. You care to disagree? Put your argument forth.
@ bemused, 1262
Good job ignoring my response to Dio’s post. But then, I guess that’s what you do – ignore posts you can’t formulate a witty response to.
Some good news on the diversity front.
@AFLdiversity: BREAKING | For the first time in @AFL history the word ‘umpire’ will be translated during Multicultural Round. http://t.co/ujkqKdYSxS
@It’s Time/1255
It’s funny how you argue with people about letting Refugees fly in, but it’s ok to use Navy resources (i.e. tax payers money) to send boats back.
Oh telling people how to grow up to defeat their argument is not really such a great idea #adultgoverment.
@ cud, 1265
Damn right we can – and it’d create thousands of jobs (if not tens of thousands) just processing and integrating them.
“@Kon__K: #NauruInquiry hears cost of locking up 1 refugee in Nauru Detention Centre over past 10 months costs:
$2,099 a day per #refugee
Staggering”
@ guytaur, 1270
Think of how many refugees we could settle in the community and teach English to (if they don’t already know it) for that kind of money.
imacca @ 1248
I agree with your assessment of Shorten’s performance and the fact that she put Sales in her place. Indeed, it is the best performance by a Labor politician dealing with an interviewer obsessed with getting her gotcha that I can recall seeing for a very long time.
As for your comment:
[i’m not going to judge her on this one until i have seen the Abbott interview proposed for tomorrow night. I think its possible she went hard on Shorten to justify going for Abbott’s throat when he goes on.]
That’s exactly how I felt the last time Sales interviewed Shorten and Abbott sequentially. That time Shorten was harassed and interrupted incessantly too, but he was much more evasive than tonight, where he was clear and direct. The subsequent interview with Abbott made me think Sales was looking to replace Margie as Abbott’s handmaiden. I hope it’s different tomorrow night if it happens, but I no longer have any faith that it will be.
Maybe next time she interviews Shorten she will give him the softly treatment that she gives Abbott for fear of him rolling all over her again.
AS
[We’re sending them to die somewhere else rather than hearing their (legal under international law) claims for asylum.]
No – in the majority of cases – we’re sending them back to Indonesia (where it is safe to do so).
I’m not necessarily comfortable about that, but I’d like it if we could keep to the facts.
[If you don’t give a shit whether people you send back end up dead, that’s murder.]
And if you don’t give a shit about people drowning in an attempt to get here, that must be murder too.
@ zoom, 1272
I take offense to that. If you’d been reading any of my posts, you’d have realised that stopping the boats (or, more accurately, the drownings at sea) is a primary concern of mine. Hence the “let them fly here” suggestion.
The Coalition’s policy is to replace murder by neglect with murder by malice. Labor has jumped on the same boat.
er, that was directed at 1273, not 1272
[I agree with your assessment of Shorten’s performance and the fact that she put Sales in her place]
Has Shorten had a sex change?
1260
And why is it impractical and unsustainable? Because you say so?
Refugees are an investment that pays off – processing and integrating them will create jobs and stimulate the Australian economy. The more that arrive, the more stimulus.
Most of the furniture pack is made in Malaysia. It doesn’t last long and is currently being stacked up ten feet high in warehouses before someone realizes it’s worthless and will be dumped.
@MarkDiStef: I totally missed Toby Ziegler showing up and side-eyeing @billshortenmp today. http://t.co/NwPK4znqj1
Sales really does need the sack for being a disrespectful, biased hack masquerading as a journalist.
[ The subsequent interview with Abbott made me think Sales was looking to replace Margie as Abbott’s handmaiden. ]
LoL! Will see tomorrow….maybe. 🙂
@ silmaj, 1277
If there was a coherent point you were making related to my argument in the slightest, it completely eludes me.
@guytaur/1270
$2 grand a day (plus admin costs/navy resources/gov resources etc), this policy outways the cost alone.
1281
Do you know what furniture refugees are given and where it is made?
AS
And likewise. If you don’t realise that most posters here are seeking a way of stopping deaths at sea, then you’re being offensive yourself.
Your ‘let them fly in’ scenario has repeatedly been shown to be ridiculous. You have repeatedly shown that you have no grasp of the numbers involved, and haven’t explained how the refugees at real risk of spending their lives in camps, with no ability to get near either a plane or a boat, can be catered for.
And of course, if those who fly in have the same success rate when it comes to processing as those currently flying in, some of them are going to opt for the boat option anyway.
Most posters here are seeking a real solution, not one that just makes the person putting it forward feel virtuous.
At 2 grand a day, you could run any infrastructure project you like.
Instead we have this stupid idiots in charge.
Josh Taylor @joshgnosis 9h9 hours ago
Confused about this paragraph of the government’s piracy survey. It just listed the same thing three times…
Another useless policy that Labor supports.
@ zoom, 1284
I didn’t say that. I said people who are supporting Liberal/Labor policy (turnbacks) are seeking to replace deaths at sea on the way to Australia with deaths in some other country where it doesn’t make the headlines in Australia.
There’s a difference.
However many will come will come. I’ve yet to see anyone on the other side counter my argument with some proof of how many refugees Australia could handle and how my policy would lead to more than that coming.
I support increased intake from camps. I’ve always supported increased intake from camps. Strawman begone!
[“Flying them in” isn’t my solution, letting them fly here is. There’s a difference. One is active, one is passive. Both would put the boats out of commission forever and stop the deaths on the way to Australia, mind you.]
So, anyone who applies for a visa to enter Australia as a refugee will automatically be allowed in to be processed. That shouldn’t stretch the resources of even a rich country like Australia. And it wouldn’t cause major social dislocation.
[And why is it impractical and unsustainable? Because you say so?
Refugees are an investment that pays off – processing and integrating them will create jobs and stimulate the Australian economy. The more that arrive, the more stimulus.]
In the current economic environment with sustained high unemployment, slowing economic growth and falling investment, a surge of workers will be a dubious financial benefit.
@ zoom, 1284
Nobody is going to spend tens of thousands to get on a leaky fishing boat when they can spend a few hundred to get on a commercial airliner – and that means the business model of people smugglers will be finished.
@ It’s Time, 1288
That would be one way to do it – or you could allow those seeking refuge to simply get on a plane without a visa and, if they don’t claim asylum at Customs, put them on the next plane right back (like you would any person whose visa was dodgy).
We have the resources to do this. What we lack is the will.
Oh boo hoo – some xenophobic twats in Western Sydney will be mad! Whatever shall we do?
Investment in processing = jobs = more people with income = higher consumer demand = more jobs = more people with income = higher consumer demand…
and so on.
Fairfax is “winning” Charlie Sheen style and are only $1.35 Million Dollars out of pocket from the Hockey defamation case.
Love it.
Arrnea Score to date: 13 post ut of the last 40.
Told youse so. This will go on until everyone gives up. No-one will be convinced, except Arrnea… of his/her own sainthood.
Everyone else will be just glad to get away and get some peace.
[Your ‘let them fly in’ scenario has repeatedly been shown to be ridiculous. You have repeatedly shown that you have no grasp of the numbers involved,]
So zoomster, what are the real numbers involved? I don’t see anyone in this debate actually making any effort to arrive at concrete numbers. This “repeatedly shown” is simply “repeatedly vaguely suggested”.
Fuck off, Bill.
TBA
Are you going to chip in to help cover Joe’s big loss?
TrueBlueIdiot is in typical, shoot-from-the-hip gloating mode again. He can only ever see one side of the ledger:
[Fairfax is “winning” Charlie Sheen style and are only $1.35 Million Dollars out of pocket from the Hockey defamation case.
Love it.]
Fairfax has defamation insurance. Hockey does not.
Maybe Joe’ll have to put up the rent he pays to himself on the Canberra property to compensate for the hard cash he’ll need to dish out? He’d be stupid enough to try this. I wouldn’t put it past this complete and utter fiscal klutz.
And this man is actually in charge of our economy?
And TBI applauds him?
“Idiot” is too kind a word for both.
Sam Wang on how less stupid polling might have spared American its recent fuss over Donald Trump:
[The technique is called instant runoff, and here’s how it works: Ask respondents to rank all of the candidates, from most preferred to least. Pollsters then eliminate the candidate receiving the fewest first votes, and the loser’s supporters are reassigned to their next choice. This process is repeated until there is only one winner left.]
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122333/donald-trump-not-frontrunner-smarter-polls-would-prove-it
AS
[I didn’t say that.]
Ah. So all those references to monsters etc weren’t actually aimed at the people you said you were aiming them at?
Sorry, I misunderstood.
[However many will come will come. ]
Totally unrealistic. If you expect any political party – not just in Australia, but virtually anywhere – to adopt a policy like this you’re dreaming.
There’s no point arguing for fairyland la-la solutions.
You yourself have stated elsewhere that we should take what we can cope with. Having said that, to be taken seriously, you need to define what that means. So far, you’ve shirked that.
You seem to fall back on an almost religious mantra that we won’t get more than we can deal with because. No one doing serious policy will accept that.
So one can only conclude you’re not serious. You like feeling morally superior, but you don’t like actually confronting the issues and trying to deal with them.
That’s fine, puts you in the majority camp – most people wave away policy questions with “oh, that’ll be sorted out’ – but don’t then insult others who are grappling with the real issues that you refuse to deal with.
So Bill and Friends are now promising to turn back the boats… something on a few years ago they said was impossible.
Mind you Kevvie also promised to turn back the boats before the 2007 Election and we all know he lied about that, so whats new?
Everyone knows when it comes to our borders Labor as a weak as dish water.
@TBA/1291
Isn’t Hockey suppose to be doing stuff for our economy?
What was his job description?