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.
CUD – There are 50 million genuine refugees world-wide according to the UNHCR. You don’t even need a nearby crisis. Europe has been closed to refugees. Then you have to add on top of that economic migrants (who would undoubtedly join the influx). They don’t need a crisis.
A month? That’d be 25-50 times the highest number we saw under the Rudd and Gillard governments.
This is more or less what I was going to add. What happened under Rudd was a good real life experiment that might help calibrate a model. I was thinking in terms of several tens of thousands per year initially but easing off after a few years, depending on the geo-political situation.
A reasonably high fidelity model would also model routes/modes/costs and all the alternative paths via which people would flee.
I think it’s time for Mal to create one of his superduper 30 minute cities somewhere across the north, to house all the new arrivals. If it isn’t used for refugees from war, it will soon be put to use for climate refugees. (slight sarcastic tone)
K17,
And where are those 50 million genuine refugees? What are their circumstances? What would they actually do? The vast majority will remain just where they are because they are actually already “settled” to some extent and either don’t want to or don’t have the resources to make it this far.
There are a lot of refugees in circumstances like the Palestinians who have no intention to make long voyages but want their “home” back.
The Europeans are currently facing the consequences of an open door policy, thanks to Madam Merkel, and the numbers for Europe are catastrophic. They have gone for the nearest thing to the Malaysia Solution, swap those that come across the sea with those from camps in Turkey.
In doing this they are dealing with a toxic regime in Turkey, not the reasonable neighbour that we have in Malaysia.
Gillard and Labor did the right thing, they were willing to take more refugees from the camps in Malaysia than we were sending from those that came here via boats.
The Labor policy removed all incentive to try the sea and kept the people of this country on side, we would have remained a hospitable country to refugees, coming in greater numbers than are currently allowed in. We could have kept our head high in international forums rather than being seen as grubby and cruel.
Why wouldn’t the numbers escalate dramatically (as they were doing towards the end of Labor’s government). Germany just got a million Syrian refugees in the blink of an eye, and that doesn’t even count people streaming across the Mediterranean from Africa. The world is on the move. Refugee populations will, understandably, flow towards the weakest point.
No, K17. I’m saying you set up real processing in places like Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Thailand, with transport to real destinations by official flights rather than desperate self selected boats because nothing else is possible for them and they have made a very realistic decision that a 5% chance of death on a boat is the least worst of some terrible options.
I’m saying we are honest enough to accept a significant number of refugees (at least 20% of our annual immigration total) from the areas that our current (overwhelmingly assessed as refugees) asylum seekers come from.
Combine this and the para above and the boats stop, because people have a better option. Contrary to common Aus media views, Asylum seekers are no fools. We imagine “stopping the boats” makes their lives “safer”. The reality is it means they are forced to choose the next worse, but new “least worst” option. 🙁
I’m saying we cut the crud re Manus & Nauru as “deterrents” for Australian political purposes ( Heck, there are well over 20,000 people on asylum seeker /refugee bridging visas in Aus compared to the single MCG bay worth of people we are determined to utterly destroy the lives of as a “deterrent” on Manus & Nauru. Those seeking asylum know that. If you are rich enough/ can find a shonky loan dealer etc you just come by plane , not boat. If not, you end up illegally employed in Indonesia or Malaysia, working for next to nothing or starving. Or worse still, you helplessly, desperately, hopelessly watch your kids go into the sex trade servicing wealthy Aussies in Thailand or Malaysia, or have to play the same obscene game yourself.
This stuff isn’t pretty. I’m afraid I find the ALP running with the same crud as the Libs on this stuff unconscionable. If the ALP as a party is worth voting for it has to come up with something better than “we’ll screw refugees too” as an answer. As I said, I deeply admire those in the party who recognise such things. I’m afraid I’m utterly, deeply, appalled by the current “official” ALP position, though. I know many decent ALP members and voters are too. In many cases it will probably be a vote changer, unless you come up with something a tad more honest!
CUD – Why on earth would the numbers tail off. You really think that after we get several tens of thousands a year the “push factors” will just tail off? They will grow.
ROD – I basically agree with you. The only issue is what happens if, after doing everything you want, the boats don’t stop. Do you stop them?
Rod Hagen
[This stuff isn’t pretty. I’m afraid I find the ALP running with the same crud as the Libs on this stuff unconscionable. If the ALP as a party is worth voting for it has to come up with something better than “we’ll screw refugees too” as an answer. As I said, I deeply admire those in the party who recognise such things. I’m afraid I’m utterly, deeply, appalled by the current “official” ALP position, though. I know many decent ALP members and voters are too. In many cases it will probably be a vote changer, unless you come up with something a tad more honest!]
Me as well Rod!
Many on here have lost their empathy gene.
The Greens and everyone else critical of the ALP position on AS at the current time are missing the point. When debating possible outcomes the question is NOT:
How do we treat Asylum Seekers more humanely?
It IS:
Which party do want in government after the next election?
Why are so many failing to recognise this? If the ALP adopt Greens policy the LNP will win the election and atrocious treatment of AS will continue with zero possibility of changing. If the ALP win, the same will happen initially, but in time there is a strong possibility of changing the treatment of AS for the better.
MTBW – Since we’re now in a “compassion” auction let me say I would happily take 60 – 70,000 refugees a year. But I seriously doubt you can do it through open borders.
KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN
How about we get some immigration officers and doctors to determine what should be done?
K17, if “the boats don’t stop” you know that those people getting on them are realistically seeing a 5% chance of death on the journey for themselves and their families as their “least worst” option, and you work your butt off to provide better honest choices. You don’t say “It’s messy if you to die on OUR doorstep. Please choose somewhere else!”
Because they are treating this issue on the basis of partisan political ideology rather than approaching it as a genuine policy issue which needs resolving.
PB hasn’t had a mature discussion about asylum seekers since Psephos left. I may have disagreed with much of his viewpoints, but at least he was able to maturely and intelligently discuss the matter without resorting to childish hysteria.
Bluey Bulletin 40 Day 40 of 103
SUBS
Bluey notes that the raving right is in a big uproar about les sous-marines. The complaints include: shonky process, it is all about Abbott v Turnbull, insulting the Japanese, insulting the US, paying $7 billion too much, $50 billion is a shonk number, if we go to war with China nothing will save us, the boat does not even exist, the JSF as an exemplar, the French are cheese-eating surrender monkeys, it is a portal for the evil unions, and it is an egregious vote-buying exercise. Bluey could find only one single article in the right wing MSM arguing that it is an unalloyed good thing. There were sporadic attempts at polishing what individual raving right writer obviously knew to be a Werribee Brown trout.
DIRTY DANCING WITH THE ATO
Bluey reckons class warfare. Everyone knows that if you are an Aboriginal you end up in the slammer for $50 fines. Everyone knows that it is worth spending $60 million to get 100 trade unionists before the beak even when case after case falls over in the cold hard light of the legal dawn. Everyone knows that if you want to enjoy your paedophilia untrammelled by the law, get yourself a catholic parish priest position. Everyone knows that if you want to cheat criminally on the donations laws, o see Stinky. You will escape scot free. But what almost no-one knows is that the 800 Australian high-value names exposed to the Turnbull Government by the Panama Papers are quietly cutting dirty deals with the ATO. It works like this. The ATO has your name and some nasty numbers about how much you have cheated out of your fellow Australians. Caught red-handed, you confess!. This gets you a deal that does not address any tax cheating you did more than four years ago. Plus you are guaranteed an exemption from criminal proceedings. You hand over a fraction of the money you stole off Australia and off you go. Scot free. Bluey reckons that a few inoffensive but vastly over-represented Aboriginal teenagers should be cleared out of our jails and some rich old white Australian tax criminals should fill the vacancies. Since these are probably Turnbull’s mates, it will not happen. Bluey wants a Royal Commission into tax cheating, tax avoidance, and tax evasion. Now.
10 SECOND CITY
Bluey notes that the policy discussion has degenerated extremely quickly when the MSM realized that Lord Pollywaffle of the Swimming Pool was only going to tip $50 million into the 30 Minute City Vision Thing.
MANUS BLUES AND GREENS
Bluey reckons that the Greens are drawn to Manus like blowflies to a rotting carcase. So are the Liberals. The difference? The Greens make not a polyp of difference. Not.a.polyp. Nothing. De nada. Zip. Zero. But the Greens do talk up a vaporous storm.
OF INTEGRITY, NOT A SKERRICK
Bluey has a low opinion of the Coalition’s integrity, both individually and collectively. Bluey opines that Morrison has no integrity when it comes to making decisions about selling stuff to the Chinese near an election. Bluey opines that Turnbull has no integrity when it comes to buying the South Australian vote with a shonk sub deal. Bluey opines that Sinodinos has no integrity when it comes to donations and that Bishop has no integrity when it comes to cutting foreign aid from those who most need it. Bluey opines that Corman and O’Dwyer have no integrity when it comes to hunting the Big End of Town spivs. Bluey opines that Payne has soiled herself on the subs. Bluey opines that Robert needs to be prosecuted for breaching national security by taking a Defence cell phone into mainland China. Bluey opines that Pyne has no integrity when it comes to the truth about his education ‘reforms’ or his submarine rent-a-vote scheme. Bluey opines that Ley is seeking to deliver the US system of health care but lacks the integrity to tell the truth about this. Brough? Go figure. Roy? Go figure. Bluey opines that Hunt is the world’s most embarrassing climate minister. Bluey opines that Hunt has so much integrity that he is helping open up the Galilee Basin to the coal monsters. Bluey opines that Joyce would sell his grandmother for a farm gate taxpayer scam. Bluey opines that individually and collectively the Coalition is a gang of crooks, shonks and liars whose only really interest is helping spivs to despoil Australia.
Verdict for the day: evens
Cumulative verdict: Labor 26.5 Coalition 13.5
Must be the Election Season.
Heavy concentrations of “Be Alert… dob in a neighbour” national security ads being shown on all TV stations.
Rod Hagen @ #209 Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 5:43 pm
Total drivel, that disregards all reality. The other day C@tmomma reported to PB on her recent door-knock experience stating (to her shock) that people were still overwhelmingly concerned about opening the borders. This is the electorate and the plain facts. Just ask JG how it went last time when trying to find a solution… any solution, regardless of the political hits… and she got plenty… she did everything she could searching for a bipartisan solution and got caned by the politics… Coalition to the right/Greens to the left. Try and recall the press jumping all over the issue with their constant referral to illegals… the right wing radio hacks… Current Affairs programs and fear campaigns from all and sundry. You think this reality has changed? Labor are well and truly wedged on this issue and have nowhere to go – to deny this is naivety in the extreme.
As far as I’m aware Labor have never said anything like “we’ll screw refugees too” and I’m pretty sick of the inane implications that Labor is the evil party when they have bent over backwards for a solution the nation would accept and bore the brunt of treachery from both sides of the political divide.
lizzie:
Our environment is already stressed. In our little corner of the country we are seriously looking down the barrel of running out of water unless new supplies can be found somewhere. The options being canvassed to date include displacing existing residents by reclaiming their farms for dams.
And you’re right, once we add climate refugees into the mix, it’s a whole new ball game.
Like the problems of traffic congestion in our capital cities were ever going to be resolved with a mere $50M. Turnbull is managing to out-Abbott Abbott with his ill-thought out ‘announceables’.
wow the open borders canard rises its head again.
For those of you arguing this you don’t understand the significance of the PNG court decision.
Liberty is not to be infringed. The people smugglers KNOW they can use PNG as a transit point. No navy interception possible.
T;his is why off shore is dead. The route to NZ is open right now as they have no Howard era migration laws. What NZ could do politically is still unknown.
So if borders are indeed “open” we will soon see how many the numbers are.
fess
And the crack team of Mal, Barnaby and Greggie Boy are in charge, while the Monkeypods make sure that nothing can be done about climate change.
Nah, a b at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2016/04/30/double-dissolution-election-maybe-minus-nine-weeks/comment-page-5/#comment-2382914
That is the worst possible reason to accept the ALP’s current timorousness. If you genuinely want a better, more honest, ALP policy on refugees you have to demand it, not pretend “it will all be fine later if we ignore it”. A century of history says that that quite the reverse is true.
I have no doubt decent people in Labor could come up with a far, far better policy than the Libs currently offer, but the party as a whole won’t unless they are pushed to. Old ALP “White Australia” shibboleths still die hard, I’m afraid. If you really want something better , you have to demand it be sold properly and explained and on the table now, not when it would be so, so easy to ignore.
Boerwar 218
DIRTY DANCING WITH THE ATO
I certainly agree with Bluey.
cud @ 5.21
There are so many unknowables that a model can only give us a general idea. We do have the experience, however, of the number of people who came into Australia in 2012 and 2013. It is far more than we can settle and still maintain social cohesion.
As I said earlier, the real challenge is the idea of border control. Whether people like it or not, that is central. And no amount of high level talking down to ordinary people – especially the working class and poor people who are largely the bedrock of the ALP (as opposed to the middle class supporters of the Greens) – will do anything other than convince them that they are being marginalised and their concerns ignored.
lizzie:
I think it’s obvious by now that no Liberal govt will ever take serious action on AGW.
I am happy with tough and hardline approach when it comes to asylum seekers/boat people. I am also happy ALP has adopted boat turn backs.
This is a fringe issue. Pro-refugee advocates and supporters are very vocal but don’t represent Australian people. People in suburbs, where elections decided want strong border protection. They have bigger concerns. People that advocate open borders can’t say it out publicly because they know people won’t accept it.
ALP has already committed to a large increase in refugee intake. Refugees are welcome as long as proper process is followed.
ALP would be very stupid to break bipartisan approach to offshore processing. I would hate to see destruction of Gonski, cuts to health, unfair taxation system, cuts to penalty rates, direct action instead of credible climate change platform just because ALP decided to be morally superior and adopted minority view.
Rod @ 543
Imagine a football grand final where there are only so many seats available. Once those seats are gone, you can’t get in, no matter how long you wait. All the people crowding around hoping to get in can either go home or hope something turns up. And if someone locates an open gate – or breaks the lock – don’t you think those who hang around hoping something will turn up will then rush that gate. They are not interested that all the seats are taken. They just want to get in.
Of course, a refugee seeking a permanent home is in a much more serious position than wanting to get into a football match. And they may have no option to get home. So why do you think they would happily accept a conclusion that there are no more places left in the program? Why would they not do what people were doing in 2012 and 2013, which was to try to get to Australia illegally?
It doesn’t matter how big the humanitarian program is. It will never be large enough to satisfy demand in the foreseeable future. So just setting up holding or processing camps of themselves will never be enough. Regional settlement agreements, as we saw after the Vietnam War, will help a great deal. But only solving the problem at home – again, with the softening of repression in Vietnam as an example – will actually make a difference.
TPOF
The evidence is that Labor’s working class values human rights. See Marriage Equality for one example.
So yes you are right the negative approval ratings Labor gets because of AS is the loss of control. If Labor did a policy that was humane that kept them in control of the borders then no such backlash would happen.
So the question is what is that solution? So far the Greens and Labor agree on a regional solution. For some reason Labor keeps buying into the whole numbers game means you are for drowning at sea argument of the LNP.
The reality is the Greens proposal no matter what else you think it makes it clear its about numbers with their safer pathways proposal. The only real difference between Labor and the Greens here is what is done while negotiations happen for a regional settlement.
The problem of Labor being seen to not control the borders was the bottleneck of detention centres assessment process not the actual numbers arriving by boat. So community detention with parole violators type reporting conditions would at least take away the Labor cannot control the situation.
Let Labor be seen to be in control and the human rights concerns trumps the fear mongering of the LNP
confessions
Yes its obvious now that no liberal government is going to take agw seriously. Yet you keep blaming the Greens for this as if the Greens have magic pixie dust to change LNP policy
Nicholas @ #182 Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 5:05 pm
This is simply playing politics with the issue, as is the usual case with the G’s.
Anyone at all that expects to make a difference to the politics of AS has to start with the public. If and when the public changes its mind on the treatment of AS then the politics will change. The clock has effectively been re-set to 2001. We will see if we are capable of improvement. I am not an optimist on this. One thing is for sure, the more that we play politics with AS, the less chance there will be for reform and the longer the debauchery of the past will persist.
Rod Hagen
Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 6:31 pm
You’re still not hearing me. You keep wanting to pick the third of two options. There is no “(C) None of the Above.”
The electorate is against open borders. Why? Because ever since Tampa, the deceitful LNP have conditioned them to feel that way purely to gain a political advantage.
I, and I’m sure many of you, and even many politicians, already know of many policies that would benefit society, but none of these policies would gain the support of the electorate. So we can be like the Greens – Powerless (Unable to help anyone) but liked by all, or we can be thought of as bastards with a shot at power (Able to help everyone).
You can’t win the premiership if you don’t make the Grand Final.
Talk of a “regional solution” is, by itself, just a deflection. It is a way of saying someone else somewhere else is going to solve this problem for us, even if it imposes costs on these so-far imaginary benefactors.
We have to get it straight in our minds. We will stand on our own two feet on this issue. After doing that we will be able to canvass our neighbours as their equals and not as their supplicants. Till then, they will feel they’re quite right to ignore us.
TPOF , maybe it is time you started talking up to ordinary people instead, then? A huge number of “ordinary Australians” know exactly what the refugee story is like. They’ve been there, done that. As long as Labor is prepared to play the MSM cheap shots themselves it will be hard to move beyond the “tweedledumb/ tweedledee, what’s the f’ing difference!” approach that , understandably, many “ordinary” people embrace,
briefly
Rudd got approval for his policies from the public. What got him into trouble was being cowed by the LNP and losing control of the politics.
This made Labor look like it was incompetent to manage the security of the borders. Then you had the whole Gillard chasing the hard right of the LNP with her Gunship appearance during the election campaign.
Voters swayed by AS issues shrugged and went we will go with the real thing rather than the catch up party.
To change the narrative Labor has to have a proper policy that does not chase the LNP agenda. That means admitting detention numbers are the problem. To help with the being in control part I suggest parole like reporting conditions. It could be electronic bracelets it doesn’t matter which. As soon as Labor shows its in control of the issue they will win on the human rights issues.
The reason I say community detention is that it does not rely on the immigration department speed of assessment which was the cause of the Rudd policy setback as numbers mounted in camps in Australia.
This meant the disaster at sea of drownings off the coast of WA became entrenched with the numbers coming argument.
That argument is irrelevant now thanks to the PNG court decision. Australia cannot stop boats going to PNG.
So its a numbers game while we wait for the negotiations to occur for a regional solution.
The Greens safer pathways option has the advantage that it helps smooth diplomatic relations to make such negotiations easier because Australia will be seen as pulling its weight.
Now no matter what Australia does the boats will come its just what path they take to get here and my NZ scenario is not a far fetched thing Dutton was outlining it to blame Labor at this presser the other day.
First, I don’t know about a huge number of Australians. But of those who came to Australia as refugees, the vast majority came through official channels. As for getting out to meet ‘ordinary’ Australians, I suggest that you do so, rather than me. Most of them are concerned with preserving what they have and are as fearful of the unknown and the uncertain as anyone.
If the punitive asylum seeker policy was not popular with the electorate, the fibs would have changed it by now.
AB
Actually the electorate is against the loss of control of the “open” borders the LNP uses to demonise any policy that is not cruel and punitive.
However thanks to the PNG court that argument is irrelevant now. The LNP cannot control the borders of PNG or NZ or other third countries.
So the turnbacks will have to be at Australia’s borders being the airports and Torres Straight. NZ is going to be interesting for the back door method of arrival Dutton was outlining.
AB, I’m afraid from my perspective the only point in winning the “grand final” arises if you don’t flog off your soul and purpose to the devil along the way. I’m afraid if you can only reduce the refugee situation to “open borders” and “closed borders” answers your soul already clearly belongs to old Beelzebub! The ALP needs to be clever enough to realise that this is a false dichotomy. I know many in the party who are, but It is pretty clear from your post there are still some who have a fair way to go before they understand such things!
TPOF
I became very disillusioned sometime ago, when I discovered that people who I believed were sympathetic to asylum seekers, were anything but.
I made a point of asking feedback whenever I could.
Verdict.
People dont want asylum seekers coming via people smuggling route. No ifs and buts.
Victoria at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2016/04/30/double-dissolution-election-maybe-minus-nine-weeks/comment-page-5/#comment-2382940
Sadly the ALP hierarchy seem determined not to present any other options right now, despite the urging of the brighter members of the party!
FMD. You lot have your head so far up your arse it’s lucky you can touch type.
TPOF
Australians are not for cruel punitive measures. The concern they have as you say is loss of what they have. That is control of the situation. A different thing than being for cruelty and punishing people. They just support it now because they are told its the only way to control the borders.
Well that control is breaking down now. That is what the PNG Court decision has done and why the human rights campaigners voices are being reported without the sneering tones by media commentators about bleeding hearts.
All Labor has to do is have a workable policy of control of the borders. They do not need a policy of cruelty. In fact I think Shorten is alluding to this with his comments about not having indefinite detention. He can see its the control part of the politics that counts. The cruelty is only ann excuse to pretend the LNP is in control.
Hilarious. The Greens play politics with AS just like the major parties.
guytaur @ #237 Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 7:00 pm
This is a partial, G-serving account. The party that must be encouraged to change is the LNP.
vic:
I’d argue the issue of boat arrivals isn’t really about wanting punitive measures but wanting our govt to show its in control of it all. Constantly arriving boats give the appearance of a govt out of control of policy.
‘FMD. You lot have your head so far up your arse it’s lucky you can touch type.’
Great to see the tradition of ‘mature debates’ on this issue continue.
Fess
The asylum seeker issue has been politicised for far too long. But agree that ultimately the public want the govt to be in control of its borders. The parties need to work together on this. Instead we get drivel