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-
beemer
I am coming to disagreeing with the Malaysia solution as it is now constituted. Where are the human rights protections. Where are the fulfilling of obligations under that treaty?
The multipart committee is continuing and may come up with some real legislation that will pass Parliament. This one will not. I was wondering why the PM was putting up legislation that she knew was doomed to fail. I am wondering no longer.
I think trapping Abbott into having a multiparty committee solution without the politics in it is brilliant.
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Agree
by Gecko on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:39 pm
BG
It is probably the same 5% who run the party.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Boerwar
I guess Edith Piaf is the Greens’ poster girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Kvu6Kgp88
by poroti on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Guytaur – The bill is for 12 months and the main objective is to prevent people from drowning
Surely these people deserve better than to be exposed to the danger of drowning
by mexicanbeemer on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Offer accepted.
Stay brave and true, Greens.
by zoomster on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:40 pm
@Guytaur/6454
Where does it say it’s removing human rights?
The Greens press release?
by zoidlord on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:41 pm
I also seem to recall that the UNHCR will have access to these people while in Malaysia
by mexicanbeemer on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Will the ALP support Milne’s amendment? Or will they stick to their ‘purity’ and thus be responsible for further drownings?
by badseed on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:41 pm
I’m glad to see some of you come across to my way of thinking. It was what I decided in late-2009 when I saw them vote against clean air with the Coalition, and I first got a chance to put it in practice in the 2010 election. Confirmed when I saw BB saying “Go Tony!” on tv. I’m never going back.
(Who’s this guy? He just used one of my lines. The one about the Greens always voting of 100% of nothing over 80% of something. )
As I said before. I don’t mind the way they think. But I can’t abide the way they act.
by Aguirre on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Shut the door on your way out.
by Gecko on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm
The govt has moved an adjournment to the AS debate.
by triton on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm
The ongoing drownings provides Proof that onshore process will guarantee more deaths yet the greens will not provide 9 or 10 votes which would stop those drownings.
Instead they talk and cry crocodile tears and by doing nothing, more people go to their deaths at sea.
The greens have been found wanting when they were needed the most.
No matter how much they duck and weave and point at others, they could prevent further drownings but have made a very deliberate decision to turn their backs.
Shame on them all.
by dave on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm
badseed
What is Milne’s ammendment ? I am away from tv + radio. Ta
by poroti on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:43 pm
O come off it,. if the greens support this bill they wont lose support. where are there supporters going to go.
The Greens have a solid base and that isn’t going to change.
by mexicanbeemer on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm
So when reports of systemic abuse of AS in Malaysia comes through I guess we will trot across and give Malaysia an earful, tell them to treat them better. Or AS get left for even longer years it wont matter so much because of the outta site outta mind rule.
Which is what this legislation is Really all about.
Just thinking of those Indonesia abattoirs and hidden cameras.
Then the pressure would be to pass legislation in parliament to reverse the Malaysia solution.
by Thomas Paine. on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Dio
You obviously don’t have a clue, in Malaysia you get stuck behind a queue of 90,000
other refugees and there is no guarantee you will get to Australia.
There are quite a few posters here who do not know the whole story and make stupid
statements!.
by 1934pc on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Have I missed something here? Is this some new development or just another way of describing what’s been going on over the past couple of days?
by Darn on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Thanks, MB. I thought they’d need to go through a lot more speakers first.
Hockey used exactly that mantra this morning. Principles, principles, principles, he kept saying in every interview. Said he had plenty and so did the Oppn. Bad Labor Govt. has none said Hockey.
by BH on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Greens Amendment:
Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012
(Second reading amendment to be moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Milne, on behalf of herself and Senator Hanson-Young)
At the end of the motion, add:
but the Senate:
(a) calls on the Government to take immediate action to:
(i) provide safe pathways for refugees to discourage people taking life threatening journeys;
(ii) increase Australia’s humanitarian intake from 13,750 to 20,000, including additional places to be immediately allocated to targeted resettlement of 1,000 people from Indonesia and 4,000 people from Malaysia;
(iii) immediately increase funding to United Nations High Commission for Refugees by $10 million to boost the capacity of Refugee Status Determination assessments in Malaysia and Indonesia;
(iv) establish a multi-party committee, charged with developing a framework for a long-term regional solution which is underpinned by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the related 1967 Protocol;
(v) enter urgent discussions between Australia and Indonesia to address the critical need for cooperation and effectiveness of intelligence sharing and resourcing between Australia and Indonesia in order to save lives at sea;
(vi) codify Australia’s Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1974 obligations across all relevant government agencies and increase Australia’s rescue capacity in Australia’s northern waters;
and
(b) resolves that a message be sent to the House of Representatives immediately to acquaint it with this resolution.
by badseed on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Mexicanbeemer,
The UNHCR actually came out in support of the Malaysian solution and the Australian and Malaysian Govts negotiated better conditions for the 800 refugees who would be sent back. Both the UNHCR and the Malaysian Govt. stated that this would also lead to improved conditions for all refugees in Malaysia.
by IMOHO on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Those polls of Green voters’ views demonstrate that a lot of their support is soft and a protest vote against the major parties. An easy thing for people to do – when pressing issues aren’t at the fore.
If those poll figures are true, the Greens vote will drop in the polls.
by gloryconsequence on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Preciously MB
by Tom Hawkins on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm
I’d sooner not have it. Really. If there are people who don’t share our values who are voting for us, then I find that regrettable.
Standing at a polling booth one day, someone approached me and said that they really hated p**fs and l#zzos so why should he vote for The Greens?
I asked him to hang on for a second and then turned to the Christian Democrat 10 feet away and said to her — look, this chap’s lost but I reckon he belongs with you.
I can honestly say that I’ve never met a Greens supporter who has said a word against asylum seekers or similar. Not one in the bulk of the 7 years or so I’ve been helping the party out. Not one. If I had, I’d have set them straight without delay.
by Fran Barlow on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm
And thus we see the attitude of a rigid idealogue. The world is not built in principles, it is built on evolution. Society is not built on principles, it is built on conventions added on top of evolution by humans. Where needed, laws are created. Laws are simply conventions which attach penalties for breaching the conventions.
The framework the above factors operate within from the perspective of managing societies and countries is called politics.
In democratic societies, pragmatism is what defines politics, not rigid adherence to “principles”.
This is because no single entity or party can truly represent the desires and needs of every individual.
Consensus cannot be derived without pragmatism.
“Principles”?
by Mr Pajama Pudding on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm
poroti, Milne’s amendment again:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Home/Parliamentary%20Business/Dynamic%20Red?page=7255.pdf
Greens not supporting govt’s variation of Thursday’s schedule just put up.
by triton on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm
badseed
The Greens cannot have their preferred choice. I understand that. They have to choose between what the HOR has offered or Mr Abbott’s preference. If they choose the HOR option, they share accountability for that. If they choose Mr Abbott’s preference, they share accountability for that. I understand it is unpalatale, but life can be cruel.
I have no idea what other Greens supporters or would-be supporters are doing. I imagine that most Greens will support Ms Milne’s position and stay with the Greens. A few will have read the writings of FB and will have twigged that there are former Reds in the ranks who don’t give a stuff about the environment but who do give a stuff about ideological purity. That is about as attractive as eating a raw toadfish whole.
The Greens might actually gain support from people who appreciate asylum seekers drowning. Who knows? What I do know is you have lost one vote in the Senate for this. And I will not be handing out Greens HTVcs anymore, either.
If there is a suitable amendment and reasonable changes come out of it, I might change my mind again. We’ll see.
You are fully entitled. That is what I would expect you to do, and fair enough. I no longer have to worry about mine.
by Boerwar on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Sorry, badseed. Didn’t see your post.
by triton on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm
badseed
Thanks.
by poroti on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Knock yourself out
http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=214:unhcr-statement-australia-malaysia-mou&catid=35:news-a-media&Itemid=63
by PAAPTSEF on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm
The only way to stop the boats is by stopping the flooding of Refugees, by that in turn, will need support of current and future governments and countries to stop wars and other related issues.
by zoidlord on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm
With Bob Brown gone, the Greens party is left to be run by impotent fools. With the environment needing all the protection it can get, this is such a shame.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Abetz brings up the carbon price.
Surprised it took 4 hours.
by gloryconsequence on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm
badseed@6473
On the face of it this looks like a reasonable compromise.
Is there any reason to think otherwise?
by Musrum on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:50 pm
triton
Do those amendments mean that the Greens have agreed to offshore processing in Malaysia and Nauru?
by Boerwar on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:50 pm
davidwh
Not really, totally to be expected as in their eyes it’s all about domestic politics. This is evidenced by the fact that Labor has changed its rhetoric from blaming push factors in the past to now predominantly justifying its position on the basis on pull factors.
The evidence is conclusive – the number of asylum seekers and refugees arriving by boat on our shores generally waxes and wanes according to the global trends. Just as numbers have increased in our region so the numbers have increased in the world’s other regions.
Whatever domestic policy is implemented here will not deter people seeking safe haven by boat.
by Pegasus on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm
poroti@6467
Here: http://greensmps.org.au/content/motions/migration-legislation-amendment-bali-process-bill-2012
by ShiftyPhil on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm
@Peg/6489
Stop blaming Labor for everything, it’s not going to help this situation,
This goes to you as well @davidwh.
This Blog is getting pathetic.
by zoidlord on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Boerwar@6488
They don’t have to support the bill, even if their amendment is carried.
by ShiftyPhil on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:53 pm
SP
I don’t understand. Could you explain, please?
by Boerwar on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Division now on variation of schedule. Only the Greens oppose it, so they are just wasting the Senate’s time dividing. Reading the motion it looks as though they are going to resume the AS debate and cancel QT. At least Senator Collins is more high-tech than the Greens by providing selectable text:
by triton on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:54 pm
OK then I’ll all the Senators know and then can relinquish their quota and someone else can do the job.
by bluegreen on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm
They are always up for review. It’s just that as I write these lines, our members are happy with them.
If someone proposed reviewing them in some retrograde direction, I’d oppose it and seek to preent that occurring, but if it went through and it was clearly a fundamental problem of principle, I would leave taking as many with me as I could muster.
That’s what principled people do.
by Fran Barlow on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
by middle man on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Something tells me that Fran is neither a fan nor a user of twitter. I’m not sure about the use of “nor” in place of “or” so I hope I got that grammatically correct (*). And that the spelling is also correct.
* I know I shouldn’t be starting sentences with “and”.
by Roy Orbison on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm
TP,
In the old days, before you became bitter and twisted, you would not have demeaned yourself by writing garbage such as this. You would have articulated your opinion reasonably and persuasively, backed up with logic and facts.
by IMOHO on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
by middle man on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm
FRAN – Don’t worry, I’ve voted green at the last two elections, but I won’t taint you with my vote this time around.
by KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm
prevent
by Fran Barlow on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Division in the senate now. Looks like just about everyone is one side.
by Boerwar on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm