We’re about half-way between the weekly BludgerTrack and when I’m anticipating the next opinion poll, this being the period of pre-budget calm before the storm, and a new thread is wanted. So I’ve decided to hang this one off the latest ANUpoll survey, an exercise conducted by the Australian National University two or three times a year to gauge the public mood on a specific area of public policy, and track the salience of various issues over time. The subject of the latest instalment, which was conducted by phone from a sample of 1200 in February and March, is tax and equity in Australia. Among various findings on tax that would be familiar from those who follow Essential Research, the report also finds support for increased spending on social services at its highest level since the series began in 1987. The report also finds that, in spite of everything, 56% consider the existing system “moderately fair”, on top of another 4% for “very fair”, while 22% rate it “not too fair” and 18% “not at all fair”.
The survey also features regular questions in which respondents are asked to name the first and second most important political problems, out of a list that presently includes 27 options. To make this easier to interpret, I’ve condensed results into various categories, which are hopefully generally self-explanatory (particularly economy/budget, environment and better government – security/external covers wars, terrorism, defence and immigration, while services covers health and education and such). The progress of these results since 2008 is shown in the chart below.
From which a number of points are clearly worth noting. Concern about service provision mounted to giddy heights after the 2014 budget, but promptly returned to normal after Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister. The combined result for the various economic issues is at a low point in the latest survey, having peaked in the years immediately following the global financial crisis. Security/external and crime/society, which are largely conservative concerns, are on an upward trend. “Better government”, I’m guessing, was a popular response among Coalition supporters while Labor was in power, but is not a correspondingly popular choice for Labor voters now it’s the Coalition’s turn.
“Prime Minister Bill Shorten said today…”
Sorry, just practicing 🙂
Malaysia alone wouldn’t have solved the issue of boats, we would’ve needed other countries to enter into processing arrangements as well. However, it at least would’ve meant the start of a genuine attempt at regional processing and resettlement arrangements with countries which aren’t signatory to the UN Convention. It’s just ridiculous that the Greens hold onto that as some kind of panacea when we’ve seen the abuses happening in signatory countries like PNG and Nauru, all under the watch of Australia – another signatory nation.
At least in Malaysia people wouldn’t have been detained, and they may even have been free to work. But that country isn’t signed up to the Convention, therefore we can’t settle AS there. Stupid.
Boerwar summed it up perfectly above. For all their obstructionism and hysterical wailing the Greens have achieved SFA.
Has there been any sign, whatsoever, that Madam Asbestos has done anything to promote a regional solution? Much as people may like criticising Rudd, he would have been off his arse and working hard to get a solution.
If you are interested in tracking daily melt percentages of the Greenland Ice Sheet see
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
One thing that stands out is that the April one day spike generated a vastly disproportionate amount of MSM attention. The real story, if you have any concern at all about Earth and its passengers, lies in the trend figures.
Terrific piece from Martin McKenzie Smith in the Saturday paper today on the appalling place we’ve ended up on Refugees and Asylum Seekers – https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2016/04/30/manus-nauru-detention-this-not-our-australia/14619384003189
Terrific response from MP Melissa Parke, and Senators Singh and Lines, too – http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/this-is-a-sick-game-and-it-needs-to-end-labor-splits-over-asylum-seekers-20160428-gogw6u.html
I have huge respect for the courageous ALP members and supporters prepared to take on the party machine over Asylum Seeker processing and refugee resettlement. More power to them!
They, at least, have the guts to take on directly the issues so clearly raised by Waleed Aly at http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-monstrous-failure-of-our-bipartisan-asylum-seeker-policy-20160427-gogrhn.html and , earlier, at http://www.theage.com.au/comment/nauru-detention-centre-clock-ticks-on-our-addiction-to-fictions-of-asylumseeker-policy-20160203-gml6or.html
And might I also suggest that those who pretend that the “Malaysian Solution” was anything more than a politically driven thought bubble that, if it had got up, would have “worked” for about 5 minutes before causing as many or more problems than it solved should take another look at what it consisted of, what the consequences really would have been for the handful sent to Malaysia, and how rapidly it would have been utterly overwhelmed. It was truly a quick fix,stop gap, thought bubble worthy of the Turnbull approach to politics, and not of Labor as many like me would like to know it!
What a pity the drafted refugee/asylum policy amendments suggested by decent members at the ALP conference didn’t get up. The party would still have its soul intact.
This should never have become a Lab/Lib “we are just as big a bastards as you” game. Nor should it ever be reduced to a “but look, they are even a bit worse than us, he said, she said” game.
Australia’s reputation has been trashed as badly as the lives of the refugees and asylum seekers we have been happy to utterly destroy the lives of for overwhelmingly political purposes (however some like to rationalise it).
Doesn’t the Labor Party as a whole (or, at least, don’t many of its decent members) see itself/themselves as being a tad better than that?
Two things:
Labor’s chances – Despite the fact that we all know the LNP budget on Tuesday will be a ballsup just like everything else they’ve done since….Howard, the electorate still have the mindset that Turnbull has some cunning plan to turn everything around and are expecting to see that on budget night. That will be the turning point. They’ll finally realise what we’ve all known and that will turn the tide in Labor’s favour.
Asylum Seeker Policy – I think everyone agrees that we need a bipartisan conversation and solution to this. What’s happening at the moment cannot be allowed to continue. However, we also know that a bipartisan conversation can only come about from two scenarios: The ALP wins government and builds a huge lead before hand; or the LNP initiate it. With that said it will be at least another 18mths wait before it becomes a possibility. Until then, there’s no point being critical of the ALP for not pushing for this in the meantime. As has been highlighted previously – This is the nature of Politics.
ROD – Two years after Australia goes open-door, what sort of arrival numbers do you think we will have?
On a lighter note: pop goes the weasel.
MM
“Labor’s preselection in Reid now sorted: Angelo Tsirekas, Mayor of Canada Bay ”
That is good, Angelo very much liked in the area of Concord/Canada Bay/Five Dock. A real man of the people – did lots of all day one-on-one discussions with constituents in shopping centres etc long before they became fashionable.
He’ll make an excellent member for Reid!
Hmm another side effect of warming ocean temps: increased incidence of food poisoning from eating shellfish!
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/25/food-poisoning-expert-reveals-6-foods-he-refuses-to-eat/21302504/?ncid=txtlnkusaolc00000665
I wonder if our refugee policy would be any different if the refugees were of fine Anglo stock…. actually I don’t wonder that at all, of course it would be
Rod Hagen
Great post and I absolutely agree with you.
K17, are you seriously suggesting that the only alternatives are “open door” or “open barbarity”? The draft amendments presented, but rejected by those who presumably reckon the ALP can’t sell any real thoughts themselves, at the ALP conference involved neither of those.
You’d hope “whatever else we do, we won’t buy into this barbarity” might inform even the most “easy vote motivated” members of the Labor Party. Sadly, it is very clear not. 🙁
And we could all look forward to three more years of self-immolations , small injuries turning into deadly infections and brutal bashings of detainees under the Liberal Party. But at least Labor would be pure. Like the impotent Greens.
confessions @ #153 Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 4:25 pm
Is that the same Boerwar who urged an informal vote? Pretty much on a par with the greens for in effectiveness,
People on twitter asked for a ball-by-ball on Shorten’s town hall today.
Lots of the same questions as we see each week. Asked about child care policy: said two pronged 1) need for equal pay for women and prioritising respect for such professions and ALP will be working on this 2) early education is not child-minding, and as with all education teachers need to be well supported in terms of training, pay etc
2) asked about AS: said he is amazed the Libs haven’t got on a plane to talk to regional partners. Would be quite happy to put election campaign on hold to do just that and would happily accompany Mal in such a mission BUT could not in good conscience allow the sea-lane between Java & Xmas Is to reopen. Wants this issue to stop being a contest. Wants more money & engagement for/with UNHCR to help set up a proper regional solution
Surely they could just “pick up the phone” as Tony implored back in the day! 😀
TPOF
[And we could all look forward to three more years of self-immolations , small injuries turning into deadly infections and brutal bashings of detainees under the Liberal Party. But at least Labor would be pure. Like the impotent Greens.]
What rubbish!
Labor supporters often show a fundamental ignorance of how politics works. They argue that because a policy has not been implemented it is by that fact alone worthless. Every worthy advance in public affairs begins as a proposal that powerful interests oppose, and that lazy commentators dismiss as unrealistic.
A lot of the qs to Shorten were stuff we, as die-hards already know and understand in terms of policy but the disengaged might not.
On the whole he was respectful, funny at times, passionate at times. He showed a real human side which to my observation, unless you’re a rusted on Lib, would find refreshing. Though he admitted to choosing his words carefully, he did not come across as false or practiced in any way.
If it comes to debates, I really think this exercise (he’s done over 100 of these now apparently), the practice in answering questions, sometime from hostile questioners, will hold him in good stead. I don’t know whether the Libs are watching (I’d suspect they have spies) they should know Mal has an uphill battle in debates with Shorten. And if, the Libs refuse to debate – something I suspect might happen – it will big a big concession that ‘mr smooth’ ain’t all he’s cracked up to be.
ROD – I read Walid Aly’s article. The nub of his complaint seems to be:
I totally agree with that. Though I note:
1. It is for the present govt to broker that agreement. They have had three years. That is plenty of time. It has done SFA; and
2. Walid does not mention what should happen if no agreement is brokered. He does seem to support an open borders approach. Certainly, if he does, he does not have the guts to say it.
TPOF,
Just on one specific point. Countless is not uncountable. We don’t have a handle on what the actual effect of a more open refugee policy would be, because we simply haven’t thought about it. There would be substantially less fearmongering if there were rough but acceptable numbers. Of course it suits the politics to actually not know.
Fess: “Surely they could just “pick up the phone” as Tony implored back in the day! ”
Shorten said that too wtte: “get on a plane … or at the very least pick up the phone “
JENAUTHOR – This government has been so useless on a regional solution that retired officials in Australia have held conferences in Asia with their counterparts trying to build some sort of consensus. Julie Bishop may very well be the most useless FA in Australian history. Nice suits though.
K17:
We know what happens when we have an open door policy for boat arrivals: more boat arrivals.
A B,
I’m sure this budget will be toxic, but I’m also sure that, like in 2014, the Press Gallery will turd polish it furiously. The only real question is will the Press Gallery get away with it this time?
MTBW
Why is that paragraph rubbish?
Sorry TPOF at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2016/04/30/double-dissolution-election-maybe-minus-nine-weeks/comment-page-4/#comment-2382866 , but that is utterly simplistic crap!
Heck, even sitting Labor members of parliament realise Labor can’t get away with trying to sell such simplistic crud, and know you simply cease to be “Labor” if you try too. Bad, bad recipe if you really want to hope to regain influence in inner city electorates!
FFS! Come up with better, honest, workable policies instead of giving in to the predictable Tory barbarism! “We can be just as cruel to refugees as the Libs” doesn’t cut it, even though it currently seems to be all too true.
Surely you reckon you personally, and the party you like to play with, are still worth at least a tad more than that!?
As I said above, if Rudd had been re-elected at the last election, he would have gone at a regional solution like a demon. Whatever criticisms you may have of him, that’s the sort of thing he did. Does anyone seriously doubt that?
We know what happens when we have an open door policy for boat arrivals: more boat arrivals.
Or we go to Indonesia, fund decent processing facilities, educate people, determine who is a genuine refugee and then in an orderly way (some may have to wait at times) resettle those people. And in so doing provide inspiration and encourage other countries to also resettle them. Thus removing the business case for leaky boats.
Deep down this chain of logic is the assumption that if we do this there will be tens of thousands.. hundreds of thousands.. then millions.. What if this is actually wrong? We haven’t actually thought about it.
The asylum seeker policies that Labor supporters excuse today will be the subject of parliamentary apologies and a collective WTF? from future generations. Labor does not have pragmatism at the heart of its asylum seeker policy. Lack of perspective and lack of vision drag Labor’s policy into a moral quagmire that will be thoroughly disowned one day. Some people have such a myopic view of public policy – they think that today’s orthodoxy is self-evidently correct simply because it is the dominant frame today. While Labor and the Coalition squabble over the degree of atrocity they inflict in our nation’s name, the Greens challenge the entire way of looking at the issue. The facts are that our nation has over-reacted hysterically, brutally, and stupidly to refugee flows; the numbers we resettle could rise significantly and still be manageable; we see a tiny sliver of the global problem yet we freak out and moan about this supposedly existential threat.
crap, forgot the brackets.
ROD – Actually, I think I could go with processing the Manus detainees in Australia. But the big question is what you do about Future arrivals. Are you saying there would be an open border with Indonesia and everybody would be processed in Australia.
Sorry K17, but yes, I seriously doubt it. He’d already given up on this stuff by the end of the first time around , and by the second he was simply playing the Libs game for them. Heck, he made life for Abbott vastly easier in his early days by doing his bastardry for him! Sadly Turnbull is more than happy to coast on the same nonsense.
NICHOLAS – What do you expect the monthly arrival numbers will be after two years of an open border? You want to open the border, so surely you have number in mind.
Cud @ 4.56
I realised later that I meant to say ‘unlimited’, rather than countless, but that does not really change your point.
I think the answer is to look at what has happened in Europe in the last couple of years. There really are too many people seeking asylum and/or a better life for it to be politically, socially and economically manageable. At the moment there are huge push factors in place and those push factors put immense pressure on any weak spots.
The answer, as many have pointed out, is to deal with the problem at source. But that is much easier said than done. For example, in Syria there are serious questions of brinkmanship from Russia. And Assad has shown himself every bit as brutal as IS, even if his only ideology is the retention of power. There is no question he is a First Class War Criminal, but he is protected by Russia.
cud:
Yep that is the alternative that people like me have been advocating for a while now.
To all those arguing about the inhumanity of Labors current AS policy – you should have watched and listened to Shorten today. He was far more eager for a workable regional solution across the whole region with fast assessing and resettlement than what comes across from the overview.
He was very passionate about how inhumane the inertia of the Libs has been. How it wasn’t acceptable and finding a REAL solution would be a priority. He didn’t blatantly say it, but he hinted at spending a LOT more on UNHCR and working with them in all areas where refugees are, not just those in Indonesia.
So what exactly is the alternative solution?
Nicholas @ #170 Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 4:54 pm
On this topic it is quite clear that if the Greens didn’t exist the asylum seekers would be in a vastly better position than they are now. But that could just be my fundamentally ignorant take on the Greens gaming politics for their own gain regardless of the consequences.
cud chewer
Agreed. There is no doubt in my mind that the LNP’s tactic is to present essentially the same budget as they did in 2014 but with a few tokenistic tax cuts for their “true believers”, and then filibuster debate on the impacts and ramp up the scare campaigns until after the election. This will be aided and abetted by our esteemed media which will laud to the skies whatever nonsense Morrison comes up with, and yet somehow not find the time to do any serious analysis of the consequences.
Plus of course a dollop of Boats!, Terrorists! & A Great Big New Tax on Everything!
Will people be suckered by this stuff again? Of course they will.
[NICHOLAS – What do you expect the monthly arrival numbers will be after two years of an open border? You want to open the border, so surely you have number in mind.]
K17, I’d actually like to see EVERYONE here have a fair crack at that question.
So much for brackets. Glad I’m not paying for this.
Rod @ 5.02
When Labor was in Government it was reduced in the end to doing what the Coalition wanted it was being killed so much by this issue. For Labor to take to the next election the kind of position that the Greens have will be to guarantee three more years of Coalition government. In the real world, where voters actually viscerally fear uncontrolled borders taking a position different to the Coalition is fatal.
Now, that is quite separate from the issue that I personally – and most working class people including former migrants and refugees and many members and rusted on Labor supporters – believe it to be essential that we have a fixed number of humanitarian entrants and that we determine who those entrants will be. When Howard said ‘we will determine who will come to Australia and how they get here’, or words to that effect, there is a reason why it resonated far and wide throughout the community.
TPOF,
Just like any human “choice” problem, it can (and should) be modelled. Including accounting for physical factors (distance, transport routes, cost) and so on. Its pretty clear that we’re just not going to have as many refugees head in our direct as towards Europe, at least from Syria. All of this could be done rationally and even knowing within a factor of 2 or 3 is probably sufficient.
CUD – I wouldn’t be surprised if you were seeing 50,000 – 100,000 a month at the end of two years.
I think it’s not unreasonable to forecast arrival numbers in the tens of thousands per year, based on what happened under Rudd Mk I. Shipping fee paying applicants under Australia’s humanitarian intake is a business enterprise after all that any Indonesian with access to a boat can join, so you’d expect if Australia opened its borders to all boat arrivals, that the numbers would increase, not decrease.
I’d also like to know where they will all live.
Gecko
I have been on the verge of saying this for a while now – glad to see someone else agrees. The Greens and their approach to asylum seekers are the best campaign boost the LNP could ever have hoped for. Keeping this issue “front and centre” with a nonsensical (and deeply unpopular) “open door” policy is exactly what the LNP needs to keep up popular support for their barbaric asylum seeker policy.
The ALP came to their senses and refused to play this game a while ago, but the Greens simply can’t ever seem to see they are being played for mugs.
K17,
How do you account for that figure, without coming up with another crisis in a country closer to oz?