tip off
14

Essential: approval rises for asylum seeker policy

More than a third of Australians think the government is taking the right approach to asylum seekers, according to the latest Essential data. This is a record high — and 20% of Coalition voters still say asylum seeker policy is too soft.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott remains deeply unpopular with voters and the government’s modest recovery after its budget stumbles has faltered, today’s Essential Report shows — but there is strong support for its stance toward asylum seekers.

The Prime Minister has a net approval rating of -24 (34% approval, 58% disapproval), virtually unchanged since June (-23); Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is also barely changed, with a net disapproval rating of -2 (36% to 39%, from 38%-40% in June). Shorten leads Abbott as preferred PM 37%-34%, down a point from June (40%-36%). There’s some good news for the PM — he no longer has a big gender gap in his approval rating, with women (-26) and men (-23) now virtually indistinguishable in their view of him. The problem is, that view is overwhelmingly negative.

However, despite the deep unpopularity of the budget, the Coalition can at least reflect on support for one of its controversial policies: support for its changes to the disability support pension to confine it to the permanently disabled is supported 46% to 37%, with particularly strong support (59%) from the aged (who are unaffected by the proposal) and Liberals voters (705) while other/Palmer United voters are evenly divided on it. Approval of the government’s handling of asylum seekers has also improved despite criticism of the disappearance and repatriation of Sri Lankan asylum seekers (the poll was completed before last night’s High Court decision). Some 41% of voters approved of the government’s handling of the issue compared to 35% who disapproved, which is up from 39%-38% in March.

The number of voters who think Australia is too soft on asylum seekers is now at its lowest level since 2010, with 18% of voters saying we’re too soft, compared to 28% in March and 60% in July last year. The number of voters who say the government’s approach is about right is at its highest ever, 36%, while the number of people saying Australia is too harsh is also at a record high — 27%, compared to 25% in March and 12% in July last year. This is the first time more voters believe the government is too harsh than too soft — although nearly a fifth of voters continue to want even more draconian measures adopted against asylum seekers.

Electricity was most likely to be identified as the household expense of concern, with 80% of voters expressing concern about it, including 49% who said they were “very concerned”. That was higher than health costs (76%; 42% very concerned) and transport (74% and 35%); gas was only 54% (24%).

On voting intention, Labor has regained two points (40%) while the Coalition has lost one (39%), the Greens (9%), the PUP (6%) and others (7%) remaining the same, for a two-party preferred outcome of 53%-47% in Labor’s favour.

14

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    zut alors
    Posted Tuesday, 8 July 2014 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    …although nearly a fifth of voters continue to want even more draconian measures adopted against asylum seekers.’

    This beggars belief. One can only assume that fifth have not the slightest clue of the hardship and heartbreak currently facing asylum seekers.

  • 2
    Chris Hartwell
    Posted Tuesday, 8 July 2014 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    My inner cynic suggests they know it in an academic sense zut, but these so-called asylum seekers, well, they’re not real people, so what does it matter?

  • 3
    fractious
    Posted Tuesday, 8 July 2014 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    @ zut, astonishing isn’t it, not to say horrifying. And more than a third of those polled think sending people who’ve been tortured back to where they were tortured is “about right”? Shameful.

  • 4
    MarilynJS
    Posted Tuesday, 8 July 2014 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    Why do you disgusting scum pollsters play with human lives, you are no better than Morrison.

  • 5
    MarilynJS
    Posted Tuesday, 8 July 2014 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/asylum-seekers-returned-to-sri-lanka/#exMGqIxwXk5jwXrO.97

    REmember how Simon Benson’s exlusive yarn said they are all men, that tiny baby in mum’s arms doesn’t look like a man to me.

  • 6
    AR
    Posted Tuesday, 8 July 2014 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    Listening to Rat Hately this morning skite about his & Jones’ ratings I can only say, these are our fellow citizens, the people who walk the streets and handle complex machinery.
    Poor Bugger My Country.

  • 7
    Ken Lambert
    Posted Tuesday, 8 July 2014 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    Since September 2013 we have had: no deaths at sea, emptying detention centres, criminal smugglers going out of business, Indonesian officials surviving on more honest earnings, hundreds of millions of dollars saved, and refugees without a razoo entering our fair land in an orderly fashion…….this is a complete f***ing policy disaster…..

  • 8
    Chris Hartwell
    Posted Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    More honest earnings? PFFTHAHAHAHAHAH oh you’re a funny man Ken.

  • 9
    Patrick
    Posted Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    If you dehumanise them enough, then anything is possible.

  • 10
    Posted Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    By framing the question as being “too tough” or “too soft”, the poll introduces a very strong bias towards harsher treatment of refugees. A question that asks if the policy is “too sadistic” or “too cruel” would give a very different result.

  • 11
    Sharkie
    Posted Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    So 18% of Australians think sending asylum seekers back to their rapists, torturers and murders is “too soft”.
    About the only way Morrison and Abbott could be any harsher is to have asylum seekers gunned down at sea.
    Just goes to show that about 1 in 5 Australians are complete ….wits.

  • 12
    Chris Hartwell
    Posted Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Check any number of so-called “Patriot” pages on facebook - you’ll see regular calls for them to simply be gunned down at sea.

  • 13
    Rena Zurawel
    Posted Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    I refuse to believe that the Liberal government would not know how to stop the boats according to the law and human dignity. I tend to believe that they do it on purpose.
    It would be enough to notify the UN 12 months in advance that we do not wish to be a signatory of the UN Convention Re: Refugees.
    Only then, we would not have any obligations and we would not breach the LAW Australia helped to formulate, in the first place.
    How do we expect citizens of Australia to abide by laws if the government shows us time and again how to breach laws and forgo our obligations with impunity.

  • 14
    Ken Lambert
    Posted Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    How do we expect citizens of Australia to abide by laws if the government shows us time and again how to breach laws and forgo our obligations with impunity.”

    Which country is our latest boatload escaping from Rena???

    I thought it was India!!!!

    What threat does the Indian Govt pose to Sri Lankans on Indian territory??? None - only a less attractive life than Australia.

    These boatloads are seeking a better life like millions of other third world people….they are economic refugees using people smugglers to bypass our existing refugee system.

    Most of the first boatload were not even Tamils but the Singalese who are supposed to be threatening the Tamils.

    This is a bizarre story….We have boatload run by smugglers with satellite phones dialing Australian lawyers from the middle of the Indian Ocean to gain High Court injunctions in Australia on their behalf !! What other contacts do they have in Australia and how do they get paid?

    I would have thought these so called humanitarian lawyers as evidenced their actions to aid and abet people smugglers to profit by their trade could and should be charged with a criminal conspiracy.

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...