tip off

Essential: public backs Abbott’s asylum seeker ‘war’

An Essential poll has found the Coalition’s tough line on asylum seekers is popular with the public, who don’t think most are genuine refugees. And people remain fairly evenly split on whether anthropogenic climate change is real.

There may be passionate inner-city protests against Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s hardline treatment of asylum seekers, but the silent majority of Australians agrees with him.

An Essential poll over the weekend found just 22% of voters thought the Coalition was “too tough” on asylum seekers — more people thought the government was “too soft” (25%). The most common response was that the Coalition was “taking the right approach” (35% of respondents). It’s a vindication — from the public at least — of Abbott’s approach.

While the government has been reluctant to reveal what it’s doing with asylum seekers, citing “operational reasons” for the gag, we know Australian authorities are trying to turn boats around and send them back to Indonesia (putting pressure on that bilateral relationship), and are sending other boats to facilities on remote Pacific islands. Some people are being sent back to the country where they started their journey. Applications for asylum are being processed very slowly. Abbott has likened his campaign to “a war”.

The online Essential poll of just over 1000 people was taken after Immigration Minister Scott Morrison apologised on Friday for Australian vessels breaching Indonesian sovereignty in the hunt for asylum seekers.

Do you think the Federal Liberal / National Government is too tough or too soft on asylum seekers or is it taking the right approach?

The poll found that it’s not so much that Australians don’t want genuine refugees to settle here; rather, they think most asylum seekers are not genuine refugees (47% of respondents said that, while 30% said most were genuine refugees).

When asked what should happen to asylum seekers who were found to be genuine refugees, the response softened somewhat; almost half (46%) said they should be allowed to stay, while 26% said they should be sent back to where they came from.

These responses indicate the public is either not aware of the high proportion of asylum seekers who come to Australia by boat who are found to be refugees  — more than 90%, according to some media reports —  or many Australians reject the UN’s definition and the way it is applied. There has been some debate around the UN’s definition.

Essential has found the Coalition rates much better with the public on asylum seeker policy than Labor (around 60% of respondents said the former Labor government was “too soft” on the issue when asked the question in 2010-2012).

The country is about evenly split on whether on human-induced climate change is real, Essential has found. While 51% said climate change was caused by human activity, 39% said it was a normal fluctuation (the rest said “don’t know”). These numbers have been steady for two years.

Among Coalition voters, 29% thought human-induced climate change was real while 61% didn’t — indicating why Abbott may not be too ambitious on the issue. But there’s hope for activists who want more action to reduce emissions; voters do associate recent heatwaves with climate change (52% made the link while 34% didn’t). However, that question just asked about “climate change”, not climate change caused by humans, so it’s not clear what people meant by their responses.

Federal voting intention is largely unchanged. The Coalition leads Labor on the two-party-preferred at 51%-49% (steady for some time), while the Liberals have a primary vote of 43% to Labor’s 37%. The Greens have lifted a couple of points to 9% on the primary, while the Palmer United Party is steady on 4% (significantly less than at the September election).

Some other polls put Labor ahead of the Coalition on the two-party preferred.

8
  • 1
    Dogs breakfast
    Posted Tuesday, 21 January 2014 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Among Coalition voters, 29% thought human-induced climate change was real while 61% didn’t ”

    God help us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Stupidity is in the ascendance, deep thought and clear-headed analysis are losing the battle, actually, being beaten black and blue.

    The dark ages cometh.

  • 2
    AR
    Posted Tuesday, 21 January 2014 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    Why not include a creationism question so that we know just how off planet are our compatriots?

  • 3
    Malcolm Street
    Posted Tuesday, 21 January 2014 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Dog’s breakfast - shows the Coalition is going down the road of the US Republicans in being the anti-science party.

  • 4
    Roberto Tedesco
    Posted Tuesday, 21 January 2014 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    26% said those fount to be refugees should be “sent back where they came from”. Stupid as well as heartlless. Meanwhile the same buffoons polish their souped-up utes, drink their long necks and piss on thir neighbours’ lawns.

  • 5
    tonyfunnywalker
    Posted Tuesday, 21 January 2014 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    Same response as under Howard - refugees are demonised and some of the blogs and on Facebook makes you wonder what sort of country is Australia becoming - nasty and xenophobic is an understatement. Same will Climate Change as The John McLean expose discussion soon became a vilification of Flannery rather than the core of the article is how was Fairfax hoodwinked by McLean who By the way has still not supported his claim of being enrolled in a Phd. Climate Change communication must change and the charlatans exposed for what they are. People do not understand science - but they do understand human interest stories - the also understand the hip pocket nerve - like spiralling insurance premiums/ growing number of exemptions in household policies - The insurance industry works on probability - and adverse climatic events is costing the industry dearly. The insurance unlike Maurice Newman would not hold a $10,000 bet. It would be interesting what odds you would get from one of these online betting shops.

  • 6
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    This withholding of “intelligence” from their electors, and other people smuggles - is that a direct lifting of strategy from Murdoch’s “War on Democracy” campaign?
    Censoring/editing/deciding what information it will pass on?

    We will decide what is in the public interest and in what circumstances they get it!”?

  • 7
    Cathy Alexander
    Posted Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    AR, that’s not a bad idea. We could ask about creationism, about whether people believe in alien life, that kind of thing. It’s interesting because results are often more divided that one might assume - in this poll, Essential found 10% of Greens voters think climate change is not caused by humans and 10% said “don’t know,” so one in 5 Greens voters doubt the Greens line that climate change is real and caused by humans.

    Any other suggestions for questions we could ask via Essential to gauge Australians’ beliefs on key issues? Maybe whether smoking causes lung cancer.

  • 8
    Gillh
    Posted Friday, 24 January 2014 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    The headlines in the murdoch press and tony abbott’s mantras when he was in opposition have worked a treat - better than advertising. In the end everyone heard the same lines so frequently that it has become the truth. It was a perfect strategy for abbott in opposition. As he has no compassion and isn’t worried about life after the next election - what more could he want!

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...