Newspoll: 55-45 to Coalition
The latest fortnightly Newspoll – the first in some time to be released on Sunday rather than Monday night – has Labor’s primary vote down a point on last time to 30%, the Coalition’s up two to 46% and the Greens’ down two to 12%, with the two-party preferred out from 54-46 to 55-45. Julia Gillard has lost most of her lead as preferred prime minister, which narrows from 42-38 in her favour to 39-38, but the individual personal ratings are essentially unchanged, with Gillard down two points on approval to 30% and up one on disapproval to 59%, while Tony Abbott is down one on each to 31% and 58%.
UPDATE: Essential Research has voting intention unchanged on last week, with the Coalition leading 56-44 from primary votes of 33% for Labor, 49% for the Coalition and 10% for the Greens. The poll also gaugues opinion on the carbon tax for the first time since November last year, up to which point it had asked every month after the policy was first announced in late February 2011, and it finds support at a new low with 35% supportive and 54% opposed. Forty-five per cent believe it will increase the cost of living “a lot”, 26% “a moderate amount”, 20% “a little” and 2% that it will have “no impact”, while 44% think it likely and 40% unlikely that Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party would repeal it in government. More happily for the government, its marine reserves policy has 70% support with 13% opposed. The poll also finds 88% rating themselves not likely to pay for online newspaper content against only 9% likely.
UPDATE 2: The latest Morgan face-to-face poll, covering the last two weekends, has Labor down half a point to 32.5%, the Coalition up three to 45.5% and the Greens down 2.5% to 10%. The Coalition’s lead is up from 55-45 to 56.5-43.5 on respondent-allocated preferences and from 52-48 to 54.5-45.5 on previous election preferences.
Matters federal:
• ReachTEL last week published results of two automated phone polls from the electorates of Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, finding both to be headed for defeat. In New England, Nationals candidate-presumptive Richard Torbay was rated at 62% of the primary vote against 25% for Windsor (after distribution of the undecided), which on 2010 preference flows would put Torbay ahead 65.7-34.3. In Lyne, David Gillespie of the Nationals (UPDATE: Commenter Oakeshott Country notes I’m jumping the gun here: the Nationals are yet to confirm their candidate) led Oakeshott 52% to 31%, or 55.4-44.6. The electorates were polled in October last year by Newspoll, at which time no information on likely Nationals candidates was available, which showed Windsor trailing 41% to 33% and Oakeshott trailing 47% to 26%.
• Ben Packham of The Australian reports a “factional brawl” looms in the South Australian Liberal Party over the Senate vacancy created by the retirement of Mary Jo Fisher, who suffers a depressive illness and was recently reported to police for shoplifting for the second time in 18 months. Packham reports that Ann Ruston, former National Wine Centre chief executive and owner of a Riverina wholesale flower-growing firm, might emerge as a moderate-backed candidate. However, the Right’s position – contested by the moderates – is that she would have to renounce her existing claim to the number three position on the Senate ticket for the next election if she wished to contest the preselection. Kate Raggatt, a former adviser to Nick Minchin, is “seen as a possible right-wing contender for the vacancy”. Brad Crouch of the Sunday Mail lists Cathy Webb, Andrew McLaughlin, Paul Salu, Chris Moriarty and Maria Kourtesis as other possibilities.
Matters state:
Page 1 of 2 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
The Greens are about to again dud Labor, and yet Gillard will still be cosying up to Christine Milne next week.
Time for Julia to ditch the Greens – she can govern without them, like getting Bob Katter on board.
by Thornleigh Labor Man on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:53 am
muttley
Where is your anger against the Liberal and National Parties. After all they support off shore.
Greens do not and have not changed. Direct your anger where it belongs. At the political opportunists following Abbott.
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:54 am
McFly Marty:
the department of Img. estimates no more than a couple of hundred will arrive.
After that the internet will be plastered with Youtube videos of balling refugees being shipped out to Malaysia.
by rosemour on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:54 am
Watching what passes for interviews on Sky News is proving too dangerous for my health. I don’t think my blood pressure can take any more – here’s why.
Last night, after Oakeshott’s interview with Paul Murray, the usual assortment of Coalition shills appeared. I don’t know who they were – well, I know one bloke called Bryce was something to do with the Womens Weekly. There was some female person and a bald bloke. They proceeded to bad-mouth Oakeshott and trashed everything he had said. The female person raved on about Nauru, saying ‘we’ had spent ‘a billion dollars on a facility’ there and ‘it should be used’. I think she was getting mixed up with Christmas Island. Paul started on the usual Tory guff about Oakeshott’s ‘conservative’ electorate and how he had run last time as a conservative independent and had betrayed his voters by supporting Labor. I turned them off too and made myself a nice, calming cup of herbal tea.
Sloppy Joe was on Sky this morning trying to squeeeze out a few more tears while he repeated his line about not being able to bear the thought of sending children to certain doom in some third world hell hole. No-one asked why he hadn’t cried when he himself allowed that to happen when he was in government, or why he thought it was a good idea back then. I turned him off too, he was making me feel like throwing up.
by leone on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:54 am
It would most likely not get to 800.
You’re assuming that people would keep coming despite knowing it was a pointless trip.
Who would be the first to volunteer to “take one for the team” and get sent to Malaysia, so that others, after the first 800 could make it to Australia?
In any case, I believe there is talk that the “800″ could be raised. For every one person that Malaysia accepts, they get rid of five. Sounds like a good deal to me.
The opposition’s argument is that “we” couldn’t take care of them if they were in Malaysia, which is a “sovereign nation”… but so is Nauru.
At least one of the High Court cases in the past few years has been in its capacity as the High Court of Nauru (not of Australia). In that case it was found that Australia had no say or formal interest in the internal affairs of Nauru, and that anyone litigating from Australia was in the wrong court.
by Bushfire Bill on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:55 am
McFly Marty
It wouldn’t work as a deterrent after that. The idea is that you wouldn’t get to that point because who is going to volunteer to be in the first 800 to be sent to Malaysia and have 25,000 people in front of them?
by triton on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:55 am
Don’t hold back badseed
The reality of the situation in Australia is that there is a lack of wide community support for an open border approach to refugees who come here by unlawfull means. Both the major political parties have to deal with the political reality of that community sentiment and minor parties like the Greens have the luxury to base their policies around a minority view. Principle is much easier to uphold when you don’t have to answer to the wider audience.
It’s pretty well an impossible problem to solve given the current majority concensus in Australia. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying just we should stop blaming each other from some of the worst results of the problem.
by davidwh on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:55 am
Well the NT electorate seem to have the right idea.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2012/06/28/309051_ntnews.html
by poroti on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:56 am
The 800 will be increased and Thailand is also interested in the same arrangement.
Those who continue to arrive via boat would lose their money and be assessed in Malaysia only after the 250,000 already there.
The above assumes they don’t drown beforehand.
It means irregular arrivals stop. Thats what abbott and the greens are scared of.
by dave on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:57 am
Ah, the dulcet tones of Eric Abetz. How soothing.
by Aguirre on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:57 am
Why is that our stupid interviewers don’t put the disincentive of being in the first 800 to Morrison and Abbott when they say that we’ve had 800 in just the last few weeks, therefore it won’t work?
by triton on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:57 am
The number would be increased with agreement from Malaysia who have already said they are prepared to consider such a request.
Moot point really as the numbers won’t get to 800. That’s the point of the policy and that’s why Abbott won’t support it.
by Tom Hawkins on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:58 am
@latikambourke: Nauru + inquiry into TPVS. RT @Warrigal150: @latikambourke exactly what constitutes Labor’s compromise I’d like to know?
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:58 am
Guytaur – Yes and No
The Liberals could support the bill and it would pass but in their defense they didn’t support ending off-shore processing and as we know the current Liberal leadership is not known for taking a collaboration approach to the national debate.
On the other hand, the Greens have spent years arguing about people’s rights to safety and today the Green’s have the opportunity to support these people and their right to safety.
by mexicanbeemer on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:59 am
McFly Marty@5889
The idea is that you never get 800 to send back, because no one has any reason to take the journey.
by ShiftyPhil on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:00 am
beemer
The Greens position has not changed. They support on shore processing.
This is all about the political opportunism of Abbott. Not the Greens consistent approach to on shore.
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:00 am
Catch you guys later
by victoria on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:01 am
Today’s Peter Hartcher: http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/parliament-in-disrepute-after-politicking-rules-again-20120627-212yv.html
by Thornleigh Labor Man on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:01 am
So the Greens are happy to support people taking the risk of drowning.
by mexicanbeemer on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:01 am
The coalitions position is illogical. THey wont support Malaysia because they are not signatories, yet Nauru isnt and neither is Indonesia, who they want to turn boats back to.
And the fact that there position now is supposedly based on their concern for refugee rights is so laughable.
Why wont the MSM take Abbott to task for his ridiculous position. It is clear now that his position is purely political game playing. He is really has no interest in public policy it is all about the game for him. A dangerous and horrible man. The worst OL we have ever had
by Andrew on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:01 am
@guytaur/5915
The Greens Position is also a stupid one, if you can’t comprise, then it’s hopeless.
Both Coalition and Greens are grandstanding and Opportunists.
by zoidlord on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:02 am
beemer
The Greens are consistent. Your assertions of the Greens motives about people drowning does you and your argument no credit whatsoever.
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:03 am
Andrew@5919
Nauru is a signatory now. It was not when last used for offshore detention.
by ShiftyPhil on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:03 am
SMSSIVA …
We are a party that is drawn together by common values and ideals rather than prospective career advancement, self-aggrandizement and having the wealthy and well-connected smile fondly at you. I know that is a rather odd thing for supporters of the socially conservative parties, but there you have it. Tellingly, the number of people who are active members of the socially conservative parties is in decline.
After all, if you have no enduring values, why would you enter politics at all? Why should such a person join a party, except for reasons most of us would regard as ethically reprehensible?
by Fran Barlow on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:04 am
zoid
No the Greens are not opportunists. Their position has been the same all along. That is a consistent policy position not opportunism.
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:04 am
Abetz referring to asylum seekers as ‘illegal’ again and again. Scumbag.
by leone on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:04 am
It is abundantly clear to me that the LIberals think that the Malaysia plan may just work. Then the rug is totally pulled out from under them, and they have lost their # 1 issue.
If its is such bad policy, allow the Gillard govt to implement it and be judged for it. Wouldnt that give them even greater advantage. They are s_it scared its gonna work
by Andrew on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:04 am
Guytaur I would rather be a supporter of human rights than supporting people smugglers taking people’s money and putting them on un-seaworthy boats.
by mexicanbeemer on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:04 am
BB:
Surely the logical follow-on from that is: what happens when it is not safe to turn the boat back? Either we accept the asylum seekers (an incentive to send out dangerous boats full of refugees, or to scuttle them), or we repair the boat and then send it on its way (and I can’t see how that’s a disincentive – either it gets scuttled again or they just send so many we get overwhelmed by them). It’s ineffective, costly, and a serious waste of everyone’s time. And at the end of it all, Indonesia won’t accept those people anyway.
by Aguirre on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:05 am
abez contradicted hockey again’
they say women and children will not be sent to Malaysia
by Meguire Bob on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:05 am
guytaur @ 5921
You got that much right but you left of the last word….’wrong’.
by bemused on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:06 am
How does hockey feel , when his argument was that children and women were being sent to Malaysia and his own liberals party members has contradicted him
by Meguire Bob on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:06 am
This really is a pretty desperate smear. Yes Syria is a member of the Bali Process along with Afgahistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Myanmar.
http://www.baliprocess.net/index.asp?pageID=2145831409
Interesting that Milne is running a smear using those bastions of peace and freedom as well.
What has gotten lost in the silliness is that the Bill also requires:
It’s bullshit to claim that the UNHCR, IOM, Red Cross and Red Crescent are ALL going to sign off on some deal to dump refugees in any of those countries. The bullshit about Syria is just the Greens proving they are happy to play obstructionist politics if they think it suits them.
by ratsak on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:06 am
beemer
The Greens position is to uphold the Human Rights Convention and Human Rights Refugee Convention.
So your assertion that the Greens do not uphold human rights is actually funny,
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:06 am
It’s the old Liberal trick: say anything.
by Bushfire Bill on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:07 am
Andrew
Two very good posts.
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:07 am
You mean like Cate Faerhmann who lasted 3 minutes in the NSW LC before jumping to the senate after achieving nothing.
by bluegreen on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:07 am
Personally I now believe the Coalition is left like a shag on a rock over the issue. The Senate should pass the bill passed in the HOR yesterday to at least give the policy the 12 months to see what happens. I do have personal reservations about sending genuine people to Malaysia however if the policy does work then those 800 people may never eventuate. However if the people smugglers find a way to get around the new policy then it has to be reviewed and changed. I would see the combination of sending people to Malaysia together with people continuing to die at sea as ethically unacceptable.
A 12 month trial seems an acceptable trial.
by davidwh on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:07 am
@guytaur/5924
Yes they are, just because they haven’t changed their position, doesn’t mean they are not opportunists.
They will never support a policy unless it has to do with onshore processing.
This isn’t about attacking greens though, however, as I said last night, now is not the time to play goody too shoes.
Let the UNHCR handle the arrangements and agreements that’s what they are there for!
by zoidlord on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:08 am
This would have over and done with if we still had the Democrats.
by bluegreen on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:09 am
leone@5925
And just about every coalition speaker yesterday referred to “border protection,” as though their is some sort of threat to our borders. When was the last time our borders were actually penetrated?
by ShiftyPhil on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:09 am
Guytaur, The Greens are good at claiming that they support Human Rights but then turn around and support these people being taken advantaged of by smugglers and then having their lives put at risk but then again the Greens are good at producing waffle.
The Greens may say the right things but there actions say something totally different.
by mexicanbeemer on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:10 am
Guytaur:
I think the argument here is that the Greens position should change. Intransigence by the Coalition is holding things back, so it’s only fair to say that intransigence on the part of the Greens is doing the same thing.
When three parties have different approaches to a difficult issue, something has to give or nothing gets done. If one party can say, “we won’t change because we know we’re right,” why can’t all parties say that? We could just have an impasse for ever. The ALP have shown a willingness to compromise. Nobody else has. And for some reason the Greens are taking a perverse pride in being stubborn.
by Aguirre on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:11 am
zoid
My point is all this anger at the Greens is misdirected. If anything it will make their position even more entrenched.
Direct your anger at those that started off shore processing and are the political opportunists playing politics with peoples lives just for their career advancement only.
The Liberal and National Parties.
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:11 am
Aguirre
That argument is doomed to fail. The Greens position is crystal clear. It is not the Greens that need to change.
It is the Liberal and National parties. They are the off shore parties. More so than Labor.
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:12 am
Bluegreen: I agree..for all their faults, the Democrats were far more pragmatic than the current Greens, when it came to negotiating important bills through the Senate.
by Thornleigh Labor Man on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:12 am
beemer
The Greens are not for turning. Direct your anger at the Off Shore parties.
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:13 am
Well no, The Greens wanted off-shore processing ended, it was and now we have several hundred dead people.
I recall the carry on from the Greens about the Howard system and yes it had issues, but the Greens won the argument and should now accept their part in actually helping these people in preventing further deaths.
by mexicanbeemer on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:14 am
There are 4000 refugees in Malaysia that have a chance to come to Australia under the Malaysia solution.
I wonder what they would make of the Green’s current position which is as follows:
1) We really want you to be able to come to Australia.
2) We are going to vote down a bill that would enable you to come to Australia.
3) we have no other practical plans to enable you to come to Australia except for doe-eyed bleating to a less than sympathetic electorate.
I think the response would be
1) Thanks
2) Huh?
3) WTF?
by Jolyon Wagg on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:14 am
The Greens blocking the ETS in 2009 led to the ousting of Kevin Rudd & Malcolm Turnball – yes, we can thank the Greens for giving us Tony Abbott as OL.
I suspect what they’re going to do today will hammer another nail into the coffin of the Gillard Government.
by Thornleigh Labor Man on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:14 am