Asylum Seekers

Jun 15, 2010

Q. Which of the following comes is closest to your view?

Total Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens
All asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat should be sent back to the country they came from even if they are genuine refugees 31% 26% 38% 22%
Asylum seekers arriving by boat should only be allowed to stay in Australia if they are found to be genuine refugees 59% 67% 56% 66%
All asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat should be allowed to stay 4% 4% 2% 10%
Don’t know 6% 3% 4% 2%

59% agreed with the statement that “asylum seekers arriving by boat should only be allowed to stay in Australia if they are found to be genuine refugees” and 31% agreed that “all asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat should be sent back to the country they came from even if they are genuine refugees”. Only 4% (including 10% of Greens voters) agreed that “all asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat should be allowed to stay”.

Women were more likely to think genuine refugees should be allowed to stay (61% compared to 57% of men). 28% of those aged 55+ thought all asylum seekers should be sent back compared to 33% of those aged under 55. Comments »

Asylum Seekers – Awareness of Annual Intake

Jun 7, 2010

 Q. From what you have read and heard, what percentage of Australia’s annual immigration intake are asylum seekers arriving by boat?

  Total Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens
50% or more 10% 10% 12% 6%
About 25% 15% 15% 17% 8%
About 10% 13% 12% 15% 13%
About 5% 15% 12% 17% 18%
1% or less 18% 21% 17% 26%
Don’t know 30% 30% 22% 28%

 38% of respondents think asylum seekers arriving by boat make up at least 10% of Australia’s immigration intake – 15% think it about 5% and 18% think it is 1% or less.

 26% of Greens voters think it is 1% or less and 44% of Liberal/National voters think it is 10% or more.

26% of people aged 45-64 think it is 1% or less. Comments »

View of Kevin Rudd

May 24, 2010

If a little less or much less favourable –

Q. And which of the following would you say has been the main reason for your view of Kevin Rudd and the Labor Government becoming less favourable in recent weeks?

Not honouring their election commitments 24%
Too much spending 15%
Too soft on asylum seekers 15%
Problems with insulation and school building programs 13%
The 40% tax on mining companies 12%
Postponing introduction of ETS to address climate change 7%
Too tough on asylum seekers 4%
Some other reason 7%
No particular reason 6%

 Sample size = 642

Of those who had a less favourable view of Kevin Rudd and the Labor Government, 24% said their main reason was not honouring their election commitments, 15% too much spending and 15% thought the Government was too soft on asylum seekers.

Among Labor voters the main reasons were not honouring election commitments (30%) and problems with the insulation and school building programs (14%).

For Coalition voters the main reasons were not honouring election commitments (27%), the 40% tax on mining companies (18%) and too much spending (17%).

For Greens voters the main reasons were postponing the introduction of the ETS (34%) and problems with then insulation and school building programs (16%). Comments »

View of Tony Abbott

May 24, 2010

If a little more or much more favourable –

Q. And which of the following would you say has been the main reason for your view of Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party becoming more favourable in recent weeks?

Tony Abbott is more in touch with ordinary Australians 21%
They would cut Government spending 20%
They oppose the 40% tax on mining companies 15%
They would be tough on asylum seekers 12%
Liberal Party is more united under Tony Abbott 11%
They oppose introduction of ETS to address climate change 9%
Some other reason 4%
No particular reason 8%

Sample size = 269

The main reasons for having a more favourable view of Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party were that Tony Abbott is more in touch with ordinary Australians (21%) and the Liberals would cut Government spending (20%). Opposing the 40% tax on mining companies rated third with 15%.

For Coalition voters the main reasons were that Tony Abbott is more in touch with ordinary Australians (24%) and the Liberals would cut Government spending (24%).

27% of those on higher incomes (over $1,000 pw) said Tony Abbott is more in touch with ordinary Australians compared to 12% of those on lower incomes (under $1,000 pw). Comments »

Government Performance

Apr 27, 2010

Q6. How would you rate the Federal Government’s performance in handling the following issues?

  Total good Total poor Very good Good Poor Very poor   Not sure
Stimulating the economy to address the economic crisis 63% 29% 21% 42% 19% 10% 8%
Handling the economy in such a way as to minimize job losses during the recent economic crisis 59% 29% 15% 44% 18% 11% 12%
Trying to find ways to improve the health care system 50% 39% 10% 39% 24% 15% 12%
Replacing the Workchoices industrial laws 44% 36% 13% 31% 22% 14% 20%
Standing up for Australian working families 43% 45% 9% 34% 24% 21% 13%
Balancing the interests of business and Australian workers 39% 43% 5% 34% 25% 18% 18%
The school buildings program 31% 56% 5% 25% 29% 27% 14%
Introducing an emissions trading scheme 28% 57% 3% 25% 28% 29% 15%
Handling the issue of asylum seekers 18% 72% 3% 15% 28% 43% 10%

 A majority of respondents rated the Government’s performance good or very good for  “Stimulating the economy to address the economic crisis” (63%), “Handling the economy in such a way as to minimize job losses during the recent economic crisis” (59%) and “Trying to find ways to improve the health care system” (50%).

 A majority rated the Government’s performance poor or very poor for “Handling the issue of asylum seekers” (72%), “Introducing an emissions trading scheme” (57%) and “The school buildings program” (56%).

 The only issue on which less than half Labor voters rated the Government performance as good/very good was “Handling the issue of asylum seekers” (34% good/58% poor). Comments »

Federal Government and the suspension of refugee claims

Apr 19, 2010

Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the Federal Government’s recent decision to suspend processing of any refugee claims from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan?

  Total Vote Labor Vote Liberal/National Vote Greens
Total approve 69% 70% 80% 47%
Total disapprove 15% 16% 11% 42%
Strongly approve 39% 40% 43% 23%
Approve 30% 30% 37% 24%
Disapprove 10% 13% 9% 17%
Strongly disapprove 5% 3% 2% 25%
Don’t know 15% 15% 9% 10%

 69% approve the Federal Government’s recent decision to suspend processing of any refugee claims from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan and 15% disapprove.

By voting intention, 70% of Labor voters approve and 80% of Liberal/National voters approve. Greens voters are split – 47% approve and 42% disapprove. Comments »

Federal Labor’s approach to asylum seekers

Apr 6, 2010

Q. Do you think the Federal Labor Government is too tough or too soft on asylum seekers or is it taking the right approach?

  %
Too tough 6%
Too soft 65%
Taking the right approach 18%
Don’t know 11%

Most people (65%) think the Federal Labor Government is too soft on asylum seekers, 18% think the Government is taking the right approach, 6% think they are too tough and 11% don’t know.

Labor voters were more likely to think the Government is taking the right approach (31%), Coalition voters were more likely to think the Government is being too soft (90%) and Green voters were more likely to think the approach is too tough (24%).  

56% of Labor voters and 25% of Green voters think the Government is being too soft on asylum seekers. 

18 – 24 year olds were more likely to think the Government is taking the right approach (29%), while people aged 55 years and over were more likely to think the Government is too soft on asylum seekers (76%).

Males were more likely than females to think the Government is being too soft (69% v 62%). 

When we asked a similar question in April last year, we found that 55% thought the Government was being too soft on asylum seekers, 26% thought the Government’s approach was about right and 4% thought the Government was too tough.  Comments »

Trust to handle issue of asylum seekers

Apr 6, 2010

Q. Which party would you trust most to handle the issue of asylum seekers?

  %
The Labor Party 23%
The Liberal Party 34%
No difference 28%
Don’t know 15%

 34% of people trust the Liberal Party most to handle the issue of asylum seekers and 23% trust the Labor Party more.   28% think there is no difference and 15% don’t know. 

Results followed party lines – Labor voters were more likely to trust Labor (46%) and Coalition voters were more likely to trust Liberal most (77%).  Green voters were more likely to trust Labor when it comes to handling the issue of asylum seekers (38%). 

34% of Labor voters think there is no difference when it comes to which party they trust to handle the issue.

People aged 55 years and over were more likely to trust the Liberal party to handle the issue (49%), while those aged 18 – 24 were more likely to trust Labor (38%). 

 In November 2009, we asked people which party they think is best to handle the issue of asylum seekers.  We found that 23% thought Labor, 27% thought Liberal and 37% thought there would be no difference in terms of which party would be best to handle the issue.  Comments »