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.
1,444 comments on “Newspoll: 53-47 to Labor”
No, it is not man’s inhumanity to man.
Just simple group processes.
[Man’s inhumanity to man, front and center. Sometimes I wonder why we even bother pretending to be concerned about the plight of others.]
We are by necessity and nature quite selective about whose plight we do actually get concerned about, we do again by nature extend that somewhat with a degree of pretending.
@ WWP, 1398
So you’d rather that those refugees remain persecuted and possibly die than ruffle a few feathers in the “fuck you, got mine” crowd?
Re TPOF @1392:
[“That’s what Captain Chaos and his clown circus seem to think. They are desperately trying to return Australia to the 70’s as a first step to getting back to the 50’s.”]
Actually, their destination is the 1930s, before the advant of the welfare state, back to the hungry mile, a stronger stratification by social class,the white Australia policy…
@ Puff, 1401
Call it what you like – people deciding that other people aren’t important enough to care about when they’re fleeing persecution is a prime example of how selfish people can be.
It’s the same attitude that leads to demonisation of the poor, the unemployed and the disabled and it is making our country a colder and darker place.
Good night all.
Yeah, I’m done for the night too. Hopefully the ALP Conference on the weekend brings news I can get behind.
[So you’d rather that those refugees remain persecuted and possibly die than ruffle a few feathers in the “screw you, got mine” crowd?
No on the contrary I’d be very interested in incremental improvement and even vision and leadership. We have two parties extracting every vote than can out of the issue and one party running scared hoping to neutralize it.
I am always very critical of any journalist who writes a pox on all your houses, and I will be honest I much prefer Labor’s approach to either the greens or the libs on this, but none of the approaches are something you’d be proud of.
I would like to introduce a self-funding refugee class where the cost of transportation to Australia and all the costs of living here for the first 5 years is underwritten and guaranteed by Churches, charities, refugee groups. Where the refugee doesn’t suffer any comeback if the deal if breached but there are significant damages to the guarantor. The refugee advocates could then put their money where their mouths are.
Alan S @ 1391
I was not comparing the cost of Manus and Nauru with settling the same people in Australia. I was simply responding to your point that there was an equivalence between accommodating a skilled migrant and accommodating a humanitarian migrant.
The question of whether the money currently being spent on deterring further unauthorised arrivals by keeping people on Manus and Nauru, as opposed to settling them in Australia is another matter altogether. While it would probably be much cheaper and definitely more humane to bring the asylum seekers to Australia and settle them here, it also raises the issue of public disquiet about uncontrolled arrivals and the fact that the money being spent on keeping them in appalling conditions is, in part, being an investment in deterring more boats.
@ WWP, 1408
Since I caught this one before I left, I’ll ask this: what about having the Government pay for the costs of transportation, settlement and integration (English language classes and such), but to be eventually paid back by the asylum seeker on a FEE-HELP-style system?
I would not be opposed to that and I don’t think someone genuinely seeking asylum would be either.
[The candidacy of John Anderson … the rise of Supertramp … it was an exciting time to be young.]
The Goodies. And above-ground swimming pools.
Steve @ 1395
[It is a vast, complex issue. There are no simple, moral solutions.]
There is a simple solution – as this government is demonstrating – but it is definitely not moral.
I think that Howard’s TPV were a MUCH better option than all the turn back the boat nonsense.
Basically as I see it the problem is not really with GENUINE refugees ie those fleeing imminent death at home. The problem lies with the semi economic refugees, who while they can make a case for being refugees, their problems have only a low likelihood of causing death or injury. TPVs work effectively to stop this group coming because they know that once the situation in their home countries settles they WILL be returned home.
Howard operated a TPV regime that was deliberately cruel. I am not suggesting that, but rather that they be fairly compensated for any housing or businesses they set up while residing here.
However people who arrive her without authorisation, while not treated harshly would NOT be entitled to significant social security payments etc. Emergency/essential health care would be provided and rudimentary food and shelter would be provided but NOT pensions, new start etc. I am not talking slum conditions but rather the sort of conditions that many of us lived through when young – kids packed four to a room, with older kids under mosquito nets on the verandah and even adults expected to share a room.
People would have the right to work but ONLY in jobs that are approved by the Fair Work Commission and where pay and conditions are scrutinised.
Family reunion would be permitted (no more SivX horrors) but once again state support would be minimal. I think that for children to join parents they would need to find a charity willing to SPONSOR their education.
While I know this sort of regime seems harsh, it is a heck of a lot better than turning boats back or leaving people to rot in Manus. It also will deter those “refugees” who are milking the system
I remember Supertramp well.
[Since I caught this one before I left, I’ll ask this: what about having the Government pay for the costs of transportation, settlement and integration (English language classes and such), but to be eventually paid back by the asylum seeker on a FEE-HELP-style system?]
The government should have its own refugee intake, it should be bigger than now and fully funded by the Government. But there is always going to be a limit, my idea is just a way to extend the limit.
> but NOT pensions, new start etc.
Worth noting that Newstart is well below the poverty-line itself and struggles to provide the basic needs of living.
[However, I disagree with the assessment that it would have worked.]
The best evidence that the Malaysia people swap would have worked was the fact that Abbott and Scum were so desperate to block it.
[ the rise of Supertramp ]
Your’e bloody well right.
@ WWP, 1415
That doesn’t really address my question though.
@ TPOF, 1417
All that means is that they believed it may have worked and weren’t willing to take the risk of the Government having a policy win.
Do you really think the 800 (or whatever the number was) limit of refugees would not have been blown through in short order?
People love death at sea policy because it ain’t them.
[There is a simple solution]
I disagree, it is very expensive, it is criminally inhumane and it only looks like a solution because they are hiding almost all of the facts. It is a magic trick, not a solution.
@ zoidlord, 1421
Okay, now I’m really out. Ciao.
[That doesn’t really address my question though.]
I don’t believe any class of refugee we take should be either temporary or indebted, I find either idea defeats the whole purpose. Like with the Vietnamese experience I honestly believe that every refugee group (there will be starts and villians in any cohort) will enrich and more than pay for their way with their contribution to society. There is no need to create a debt to hinder their advancement and contribution.
The hurdle is initial costs, and even more so initial acceptance.
[People love death at sea policy because it ain’t them.]
The greens loved it because they thought it attracted them votes.
I KNOW that Newstart is low, but if you ever want to get new immigrants tolerated then they need to be given less than those already here. One reason I suspect that resentment is so high in red neck Sydney is that given the shortage of social housing, people really resent it when they see a refugee family given housing while they are struggling.
However I do like the “Hex” loan idea provided it was a genuinely fair system designed to cover the real costs of living and not set up to gouge the refugee.
I also think that at least for the first 5 years accepted immigrants should live where WE designate. This would reduce the formation of ghettos and also allow better allocation of infrastructure and resources. Settle families in country towns where the local school has spare capacity and where there is not an extra burden on public transport.
To lighten up the mood:
If you were to take every 7 billion of us, and stand shoulder-to-shoulder on a flat plain, the area would fill approximately the size of Los Angeles.
Off to bed but petition now > 62,000
[All that means is that they believed it may have worked and weren’t willing to take the risk of the Government having a policy win.
Do you really think the 800 (or whatever the number was) limit of refugees would not have been blown through in short order?]
Firstly it was working when it was struck down, and not supported by the greens to get it working again (them preferring the drownings at sea to like get them votes) and secondly do you really think if it had hit the target the government was incapable of working on alternative strategies or extensions.
This is a frequent green lie. The CPRS was bad and was ‘locked in’ whether or not it was bad is a question, it wasn’t locked in that was just a lie. Labor supported the RET revised target to try and save the wind and solar industries and somehow that is ‘locked’ in. For a party of change the greens really have a terrible grasp and a fundamental dishonesty about change and how and when it can happen.
I’m gollowing the bed trend, it is a wise trend.
“Stop The Boats” == “Die Somewhere Else”]
That isn’t really an argument for or against turnbacks (which for the record I am against). Even if Australia was 5000 kilometres further east into the Pacific Ocean and not getting a single boat attempting to come here, there would still be millions dying somewhere in the world from poverty, war and disease. There are thousands suffering in African refugee camps simply because those host countries and the UN don’t have the resources to accommodate them all.
Never forget that it was the Abbott Government that cut billions from the aid budget – that really is literally abandoning people to starve. Labor has pledged to significantly increase our aid budget and to increase our refugee intake.
I for one hope that Shorten and Marle’s positioning on turnbacks is a matter of rhetoric – sounding tough on boat people while planning to be operationally more compassionate to the extent that boat arrivals don’t start up again. I think it’s interesting that Marles said that turnbacks would be done in conjunction with a regional solution, which would suggest that any people on boats that do get turned back will be processed and settled somewhere.
Arrnea, this is a tortured issue for the Labor Party. Every single member of the Party struggles with it, including those in Parliament. This truly is an issue on which one has to be prepared to ransom one’s soul as the price to be politically competitive. Australians don’t want to be led on this issue.
It had a very small cap on the number of asylum seekers that Malaysia would accept – a cap that would have been blown through very quickly.]
Except that the primary goal of the Malaysia solution was deterrence, not resettlement.
Joining the refugee discussion again..
What I’d vote for:
Absolute cap set on Australia’s desired long-term population.
No (non family) immigration allowed that would put us over this level.
Refugees taken on a 1 for 1 basis, 1 humanitarian for every 1 skilled or investment visa granted, allowance for additional refugee intake if low level of skilled & investment visa applications).
Cap on immigration so that total yearly immigration can not be greater than 1% of Australia’s resident population.
No boats, but direct intake of applicants direct from refugee camps, flown in and welcomed.
Legal limit on time in detention of two months. Enforcement of decent conditions and security – full availability of health, education and welfare for all refugees admitted into the community.
[ Welcome to the Malaysian Solution
AMBER JAMIESON | JUL 26, 2011 9:19AM
Welcome to a new chapter in Australia’s immigration policy. The government yesterday announced the details of its Malaysian Solution policy, a plan it hopes will diminish the number of asylum seekers arriving on our coastlines by boat.
Essentially, it’s a swap deal: Malaysia accepts 800 “boat people” from Australia, Australia takes 4,000 “genuine refugees” from Malaysia and resettles them into the community.
The next 800 asylum seekers to arrive by boat in Australia will be flown to Malaysia within 72 hours. There, the Australian government will pay for their basic living expenses and maintain responsibility for the asylum seekers for as long as they are in Malaysia. Malaysia agreed to allow these arrivals to work, a right not extended to other asylum seekers in Malaysia. The plan is to resettle these asylum seekers in a third country. Australia will cover all costs of the planned four-year deal, with the total price tag currently estimated at $296 million — a cost of $54,000 to $95,000 per person, notes The Daily Telegraph.
Children, pregnant women, the sick, elderly and unaccompanied minors who arrive by boat in Australia could all be sent to Malaysia. “There is no blanket exemption,” said Gillard, although exceptional circumstances would be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Originally Julia Gillard declared that all boat arrivals who had reached Australian shores since the Malaysian Solution was first announced would be sent to Malaysia once the details were finalised. To the sharp relief of over 500 recently arrived asylum seekers on Christmas Island, Gillard backed down from that decision. When the news reached Christmas Island “loud music and cries of joy were heard at two detention camps,” reports Nick Butterly and Andrew Tillett in The West Australian.
The main focus on the deal is to stop people smugglers, says Malaysian Home Affairs Minister Dato Seri Hishammuddin bin Tun Hussein, who told a joint press conference with Australia’s immigration minister Chris Bowen “the targets, and the people we really want to send a clear message [to] are the syndicates who are profiting on innocent people”.
The Greens are unimpressed, with a statement from immigration spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young declaring ”Australians should not be fooled by the government’s insistence that this impending arrangement will protect the rights of 800 vulnerable people”.
“Is Malaysia going to be giving the basic bottom line guarantees of protection — such as non-refoulement, freedom from arbitrary detention, physical punishment, the right to work and access to health and education — to everyone when there have been no changes in its domestic laws?” asks Hanson-Young. “It seems unlikely these bottom line guarantees will be met if the UNHCR has not signed the deal.”
The UNHCR will monitor the Malaysian policy and witnessed the signing of the deal.
Get off your high horse… do you own a watch? You purchased that watch instead of donating the money to feed the starving or buy medicine for the sick in Africa.. THIS CAUSED SOMEONE TO DIE.
Do you have a house? You used money to buy that house that could have been used to save whole villages full of people.
Do you eat meat? You could switch to vegetarianism and donate the savings to scientists working on a cure for cancer – this would save lives.
Do you drive? Cars cause accidents. If you stayed off the roads you are decreasing the chance that someone will die in a car accident.
All of our decisions as individuals and as societies have wide reaching affects. Every decision has positive ramifications and negative ramifications.
Every refugee taken turned back in a boat that goes on to die can be replaced by taking an additional refugee directly from dire straights on land somewhere else.
It is not about a moral argument of something being absolutely right or absolutely wrong but about finding solutions that on balance of ALL RAMIFICATIONS provide for the greatest good. This may or may not involve turn-backs and needs a more detailed analysis than just jumping to your own conclusions with no analysis whatsoever. Moreover we live in a democracy and whilst you have the right to campaign for your own position on an issue must respect the right of the wider community to disagree and overrule your position.
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 2:57 pm | PERMALINK
[But there has to be a good chance Labor can take this seat. If this occurs, Abbott will be in serious trouble.]
I have lost count of the number of times I though Abbott was in “serious trouble”.
Some days, it seems possible that Abbott could be caught staggering out of a back alley brothel, then filmed kicking a 3 legged, stray mongrel dog to death, and still find a way to slime his dispicable way out of trouble.
One thing I can’t understand is, why even choose to take the path of boat turn backs? Why not take NO POSITION on boat turn backs?
Labor neither win nor loses votes on taking no position.
The biggest concern is the illegality of the turn backs.
You may win a bit of the anti-boat vote here, but how does it look internationally?
Also take note that there are a lot more AS coming through the airports.
Numbers backing up more AS coming through airports vs boats.
[REALITY: Statistics from 2008 showed at least 13 asylum seekers arrive through Australian airports daily, more than 32 times the number of boat people supposedly ”flooding” across our maritime borders in that year. A total of 4768 ”plane people”, more than 96 per cent of applicants for refugee status, arrived in that year on legitimate tourist, business and other visas – compared with 161 who arrived by boat during the same period. While boat numbers have increased, Australian Government statistics from the first quarter of 2013 showed more than 90 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat were found to be genuine refugees. In comparison, those who arrived by plane – despite being eligible for release into the community and not having to face years of detention on Nauru or Manus Island – were almost twice as likely to be rejected as refugees. The figure continued a long-term trend of high approval rates for people arriving by boat, with 93.5 per cent being found to be refugees in 2010-11 and 91 per cent in 2011-12.]
If every person stood in a line around the equator, most would drown.
I’m a long way behind but if Arnea Stormbringer is happy to ignore the undoubted reality that the ALP adopting anything other than a turn back policy is all but to guarantee the reelection of the Abbott Government, which all but guarantees the continuing appalling suffering of those in the camps, then that makes him/her the monster, in my book.
Verily it is so!
Dutton’s presser; instead of welcoming the new bipartisan approach to boat turnbacks offered by the ALP leader, he is immediately poo pooing the idea, with the excuse that Shorten won’t do it.
“This is our pet rock, not yours, and we are not sharing with you. And don’t think you can pick up any old rock and call it the same. Only we are allowed to have pet rocks. Yours is just a plain old stone.”
Shorten does not know what he is doing? Yeah, right.