The latest monthly Nielsen survey of 1400 voters has Labor leading 57-43, up from 55-45 last time. The survey also finds 56 per cent of Coalition voters want Malcolm Turnbull to delay finalising negotiations on the emissions trading scheme until after Copenhagen, rather than pursue his current policy of proposing amendments beforehand (supported by 23 per cent). Labor is up two on the primary vote to 46 per cent; the Coalition is down three to 37 per cent; Kevin Rudd’s approval is up one to 71 per cent and his disapproval down two to 23 per cent; Turnbull’s approval is steady on 35 per cent and his disapproval down two to 53 per cent; and Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister is unchanged at 69-23.
UPDATE: The Australian has also published a “special Newspoll survey” conducted over the weekend to ascertain views on the Liberal leadership, which also featured the usual questions on voting intention. These found Labor maintaining the 58-42 lead recorded the previous week, with both Labor (47 per cent) and the Coalition (36 per cent) up a point on the primary vote. The Liberal leadership figures directly contradict Friday’s Morgan poll: where Morgan had Joe Hockey leading Malcolm Turnbull 30 per cent to 21 per cent, Newspoll has Turnbull leading 32 per cent to 24 per cent (or 39 per cent to 31 per cent on a head-to-head basis). This seems outside the normal range of house effects and margin-of-error static, suggesting the events of last week might have produced a move to Turnbull (or away from Hockey).
The West Australian has also published two Westpoll surveys of 400 WA voters in recent days. One shows 46 per cent supporting delaying emissions trading scheme legislation until after Copenhagen, against 47 per cent opposed (63 per cent to 32 per cent among Coalition supporters). From the other, “62 per cent of people believed that changes brought in by Labor were a factor in the increase in boat people, with only 16 per cent believing they were either quite or very unlikely to have made a difference”. Curiously, “it was predominately people identifying themselves as traditional Labor voters who were most likely to believe it was the Government’s policy which had caused the spike in arrivals”.
UPDATE 2: Essential Research has Labor’s lead down from 60-40 to 58-42. It also has 58 per cent agreeing that “Turnbull has shown he hasn’t got the temperament, patience and judgement to be a leader of a major party” (a formulation I have my doubts about) against 42 per cent disagreeing, and sundry questions on annual leave.
1,543 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 » Show All
BH
It is a rotten way to have to get here but I don’t agree that most of us are compassionate enough to want these people to come. I’m sorry but I think the majority of Australians would be quite happy to see them stay right where they are in Indonesia. My opinion won’t be popular in this forum but that’s how its playing in the wider community evidenced by the fact that nobody was interested in ringing in about the issue. People just want the issue to go away and not have to think about it.
David W. went:
Because the alternative would have been to place Brighton, Deagon, Shorncliffe and Sandgate across the river into Petrie – which is far from their natural commercial and cultural community of interest.
Those four suburbs link into Sandgate road down into Nundah and out to Chermside in terms of “what do people there do, and where do they go” – linking them pretty intimately to the wider electorate of Lilley.
Petrie on the other hand contains at least two separate communities.The Redcliffe Peninsula being one (and on one side of the river), and then a mix of Bracken Ridge, Bald Hills and Bridgeman Downs. The former two are culturally coastal – in that they are culturally Bayside with other suburbs in Lilley (although having a lower median income), while Bridgeman Downs is a thing unto itself.
Drawing the line there is difficult – but actually living here, the boundaries they have now make far more sense in terms of “community of interest” than sticking Brighton, Sandgate, Deagon and Shorncliffe into Petrie.
BH
I only saw a clip from that interview on the news but Skynews showed Kev sitting on the floor with schoolkids in Flowerdale
This is a Rudd quote from the same story
Do you think this may have been aimed at Hockey after his comments the other day?
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=876717
BH,
That’s a Christmas thing. It used to be fixed so that the youngest kid there would get it. I won it once that I remember: an abbreviated version of “A thousand and one nights” – interesting book for a 12 year old. I now have Richard Burton’s 16 volume version; it’s quite repetitive, really. Is muslim literature all repetive? the Koran is. Danes are at their best with food and beer (wine was / is? a bit expensive there).
One Danish writer (Storm P) had a skit about a singing society: only two beers per man … per 15 minutes.
Apogolies for the OT thing.
Dutton is a sitting LNP member of the Federal Parliament, as such his preselection is guaranteed.
So why do we get:
Something not quite right here.
Entre nous – you could be right there. I’m not advocating throwing the doors wide open and I really feel a bit strung out thinking of that child being thrust in front of the group to plead for them. But I’d like to see the process sped up a bit so that they don’t stay in limbo for years and years.
To be honest I feel sorry for Indonesia – they’ve got a huge population to look after so they need a lot of help with this problem.
Vera – I’ll get to see the CC on Sunday arvo at 3.25 pm on A-pac.
Wouldn’t be surprised – if Kev sees a chance to get an even firmer grip for his boot on the neck of an opponent, he’ll take it.
entre nous @ 1400
I agree , the racism lies just below the surface unfortunately with a lot of Aussies. So long as there isn’t a Howard type around to scratch the skin it remains out of sight out of mind with most.
BH,
That is just after the Coalition is starting their auto-da-fe. I wonder if that is live to air, or not.
Re Sri Lankan arrivals: Australia was a party to the invasion of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. It can therefore be argued that we are partly responsible for the flow of emigrants out of those countries, some of whom arrive on our shores claiming to be asylum seekers. However Australia has had no involvement at all in the civil war in Sri Lanka, and it’s ridiculous to say that we are under any legal or moral obligation to accept people who come here by sea and attempt to gatecrash our migration system by waving their children around as a form of emotional blackmail. The correct solution to this problem is strong pressure on the Sri Lankan government to stop mistreating the Tamils. These people should stay in Indonesia until it is safe for them to be repatriated, and we should make it clear in Sri Lanka that no-one who comes to Australia by sea from Sri Lanka will be accepted as an asylum seeker.
BH
Agree that the process needs to be streamlined. I’m wondering whether its feasible to put Australian officials in the countries of origin with whom refugees could register or is this an impossible task in some of these war torn regions. This would mean that the poor and dispossessed would get as much of a chance to come here as those who can afford to pay the fees to smugglers.
“Tamils – Sri Lanka – Tamil Nadu, anyone?”
Not sure, but its a good question. I’m not familiar with the political relationship between India and Sri-Lanka, but it may be that that they would be REALLY unwelcome there for some reason to do with the recent civil war??
India is a pretty diverse place and the Govt there may be pretty nervous accepting refugees that were in some way identified with the Tamil Tigers? They may consider it to be too risky.
Just uninformed speculation on my part and may be completly wrong.
A reminder for Perth Bludgers to watch Ch 7 – The first 50 yerars tonight at 8.30pm – lots of memories for young and old and maybe you might see a certain former WA Premier in his earlier gig as a news reporter, and no he is NOT wearing a Panama Hat
Details here.
http://watvhistory.com/2009/10/the-first-50-years-tvw-channel-7-tonight-at-830pm-friday-october-16th-2009/
I think everyone agrees that genuine refugees should be welcomed without open arms whichever way they arrive. The issue is establishing the bona fides before they arrive in Australian waters and this should be achieved at the departure point not at the point where people are disembarking.
without = with
Unless they can play cricket, preferrably spin bowlers.
Tamil Nadu is a rather large state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_nadu#Religions
As I understand it, the Indian states are as independent of the nation as are our states.
Psephos 1409
Since Australia signed up to the UN convention on refugees it is fact
(and so perhaps not ridiculous) to say that we are under a moral
and legal obligation to accept such refugees, if they do actually
arrive here, however they get here and whatever else they
did along the way.
For me, the Versailles Treaty on SBS at 8:30 AEDT.
vp surely they wouldn’t be game to put that on the teev. Can you imagine Wilson T doing his thing to the camera – of course it would be a bit of fun to watch tho. (Amd yes – it was Christmas).
Psephos – I thought we were starting an ad campaign in those countries which seems a good idea.
For about the 10th time, the Convention imposes no such obligation on us. Here is the text of the Convention:
http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf
Show me where it creates an obligation on any state to admit any person to its territory.
For the moment maybe a good move would be for Australia to fund more staff to work for the UN, specifically in Indonesia, to try and process the refugees being “warehoused” there?
This would probably go down well with the Indonesians, and if the refugees had some hope that they would get moved on to final destinations (not necesarrily Australia but no doubt a few of them would come here) in a livable timeframe they are less likely to spend the last of their coin buying berths on leaky boats.
Funding a people to do that work under UN auspices may actually be a cheaper and more humane solution than chucking them in detention on Xmas Is??
If there were 15.2 million refugees in the world at the end of 2008 (according to a UNHCR Global Trend report cited by Brendan O’Connor in a recent press release dealing with the 56 new arrivals on route to Christmas Island), and Australia’s humanitarian intake is 13,750, doesn’t that mean that Australia can provide places to approximately 0.09% of those identified as refugees?
Someone asked earlier what might be a better figure for Australia to aim at. Perhaps nudging up to 15,200, or 0.1% might be a good way to go.
vp & BH This is the Sunday lineup on Apac, no mention of Malcolm’s mob
Diogenes,
Here some links….
Seeking an alternative to life in limbo
http://inside.org.au/seeking-an-alternative/
Regional approach to refugees carries responsibilities, 15 October 2009
http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/21866/
UNHCR’s views on the concept of effective protection as it relates to Indonesia.
http://www.unhcr.org.au/UNHCR-protlegal-EPIndonesia.shtml
Psephos 1421
Under article 33,
“1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any
manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom
would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership
of a particular social group or political opinion.”
Monday, Monday!
The object of refugee policy should be repatriation, not resettlement. We can’t accept the principal that if Third World dictatorship A decides to persecute ethnic minority B, that creates an obligation on Rich Country C to provide new homes for population B. The objective must be to force Country A to stop persecution population B.
Nice to see Jack The Insider (and P.J. O’Rouirke!) agree with my contention that we need the kind of people who’ll take risks to get here:
Jack sets out his argument as yet another “test” Rudd has failed. This time Labor’s too far to the right. My, my, how things have changed (which was my other point in arguing against TruthHurts’ dog-whistling and SHOUTING at PB’ers). But he’s only failed so far, and that’s if he’s failed at all. He has to stand up for order and reason in the people smuggling game. He’s the PM after all. He can’t really say what I said and what Jack and P.J. said: that our country is probably better off for giving shelter to risk takers who are prepared to suffer a lot for freedom and bring their courage to this country for us all to share.
TruthHurts’ tired mantra of regulations, dictionary and legal definitions. SHOUTING and all the rest are probably too late to save the Liberals (you know, the ones he didn’t vote for last election). He want us to accept that the Boat People are ILLEGAL… hear that? Want me to say it louder? ILLEGAL!!!. His proff? A few references to the Hansard and a couple of interpretations of regulations that use the words “illegal” and “unlawful”. As if that proves anything. He’s reliving the Glory Days when voters knew how to take cues and give went to their innate wowserism: picking on people unable to defend, or even identify themselves (all the better to demonize them).
We’re in a changing world. Jack reckons Rudd is obsessed with maintaining his huge poll lead and so is trying to outmanoeuvre the Libs by going in fast and hard. And maybe he’s right. But maybe that’s not what all Rudd is on about. Skewered at a doorstop the poor bloke has to come up with something. He’s just runf SBY and asked to to stop a boat with over 200 people on board. what’s he going to say?
“Let them come”?
“I love them all”?.
I think we need to give Rudd some time to recover form the daily cycle and see how this thing runs. First instincts are to play to the crowd. Then to see what the media are saying. Already they’re criticising him for being too tough. Maybe he can throttle down some and take a calmer line in the days to come. I wouldn’t write him off on this subject just yet. After all, it could just be a bait aimed at the Libs to see how far they’re prepared to go. And judging from what I heard and seen so far, that’s a long road to perdition.
Dr Good, no-one can be expelled from a country to whose territory they have not been admitted. Show me where the Convention creates an obligation to admit any person to Australian territory.
Malcolm,
Will you still be here with me?
And in any case, we must retain the right to decide who is a refugee. We cannot accept a situation where any person arriving at our border and claiming to be a refugee must ipso facto be accepted as one.
On a point of etiquette, is bold louder than capitals?
Don
Acid rain… a very interesting point.
I would be very interested in following up on this if you have a link. I am aware that sulphur particles drop out of the atmosphere a lot quicker than CO2 does, and am aware that acid rain is less than desirable in itself. I hadn’t put your two and two together. I understand that the sulphur particles to stave off global warming would have to be high up in the atmosphere and sort of have the feeling that the acid rain sulphur particles are much lower in the atmosphere but really, I don’t know my facts here.
Bottom line, though, is that acid rain, even if it biologically kills lots of inland water, kills lots of forests and melts public works of art and some limestone buildings, is still probably a lot less consequential than AGW at an anomolomy of four degrees, which, realistically, is where we are headed.
Well, guys, I am still waiting for The Plan.
How many do you want Australia to accept as a fair and reasonable figure? One million? Two million? Anyone who arrives in a wooden boat? Anyone who arrives by plane and does a runner?
No, perhaps not. But you were talking about people who
” who come here by sea” so then they are here even if they
have not been “admitted” (whatever that means).
Now, if they are here, and if you can’t send them back
(by article 33) then you may as well accept them
(as I said).
b*gger it all!
cf 1434 anomolomy=anomoly
Next let’s deal with the repeated assertion here that it is lawful to enter Australian territory or Australian territorial waters provided one intends claiming asylum. It is not. The Migration Act 1957 says, inter alia:
A non?citizen in the migration zone who holds a visa that is in effect is a lawful non?citizen.
A non?citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non?citizen is an unlawful non?citizen.
To avoid doubt, a non?citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non?citizen
If an officer knows or reasonably suspects that a person in the migration zone (other than an excised offshore place) is an unlawful non?citizen , the officer must detain the person.
If an officer reasonably suspects that a person in Australia but outside the migration zone: (a) is seeking to enter the migration zone (other than an excised offshore place); and (b) would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non?citizen ; the officer must detain the person.
Boerwar, see 1423.
Not at all. “Here” means Australia and its migration zone. Unless a person has entered Australia’s migration zone, they are not in Australia, and therefore cannot be expelled from Australia, so article 33 doesn’t apply.
Rewi
Thank you.
If No 15, 201 arrived by wooden boat it would be, turn around and go back?
And in any case, we can and do expel people all the time, by determining that they are not refugees.
BB – I thought the interview with Neil Mitchell was pretty good. Kev showed compassion for their plight but emphasised that he was concerned with the lack of disregard for their safety in the boats. I have a feeling that he is really quite disturbed by the sight of those people pleading but what can he do.
To my mind the minute he softens the line the media (including Jack) will be onto him like a pack of wolves. I don’t trust any of them.
Boerwar
I am not sure who owes you a plan but, I am sure that we can cope easily with
the current rates of refugee arrival (ones who make their own way here,
and those who were waiting in camps overseas) plus quite a few more
without any major problems.
Psephos,
It is amazing how other posters can say Labor hacks never disagree because on this issue you and I have never agreed.
1. All asylum seekers are entitled to protection regardless of whether Australia is cross with the Sri Lankan government or not. Their claims need to be tested prior to any decision about their eligibility.
2. Involvemt with a conflict is not a measure of how we should treat the refugees. Other civilised countries do not use this standard.
3. Agree that pressure needs to be put on the Sri Lankan to do better and try harder to reconcile the Tamils. I’m sure there will be some Australian dollars to smooth the path.
4. We need Indonesia’s co operation to stem the flow. I’m sure there will be some Australian dollars to smooth the path.
With respect, you seem to take a very poll driven attitude to this whole issue. Specifically, it hurt Labor in 2001 and we need to stop it hurting Labor now. Unfortunately, the issue is insoluble in the short term because rhetoric is never going to stop the boats. Maybe we need to face up to reality, accept our responsibilities and do the right thing.
Let’s face it 13,000 or 15,000, however they arrive, is a fairly pathetic response to a global problem, given its scale.
Here is an alternative Plan.
Reduce the consumption of water and energy by current Australians by about 50-70%, and use the balance to allow in, say, 500,000 asylum seekers.
Any plan to allow in asylum seekers with a view to their reaching the general standard of living in Australia would be to compound our over-population problem.
Boerwar, I’d merely suggest that 0.1% looks marginally better that 0.09%.
Psephos
I am perfectly relaxed with us expelling non-refugees, I just disagreed with your claim
that we are NOT under a moral or legal obligation to accept any such people. I think
that it is clear that we are indeed under such obligations to accept the significant proportion of such people who are refugees.
GG and Boerwar, the key question is, who gets to determine who is a refugee or an asylum seeker? Is it your view that we are obliged to accept the statement of any person who reaches our maritime border that they are a refugee or an asylum seeker? If so, good luck with that, but no Australian government is ever going to accept that view. If not, then you have to have a process for determining whose claims are genuine, and removing those whose claims are not genuine. And that has to be applied *before* they are admitted to the migration zone, because experience shows that it’s extremely difficult to remove people once they’re inside the zone and “lawyered up.”
Show me where the Convention creates such an obligation. (”It’s the vibe” won’t do.)
Pages: « 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 » Show All