Boats and votes don't go hand-in-hand

The Drum

Posted January 28, 2015 14:02:06

Photo: Asylum seekers and boats was an issue that was made for oppositions, not governments. (ABC TV)

The Abbott Government has delivered on its pledge to stop the boats, but asylum seekers are now devalued political currency for the Coalition and it has not been rewarded, write Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods.

There's something plaintive in the Government's attempts to refocus attention to their achievements amidst the furore over budget barnacles and bizarre knighthoods.

C'mon guys, we axed the tax and stopped the boats.

And it's true; the Government has delivered key elements of its pre-election mantra.

Reports of desperate protests filtering out from Manus Island and the High Court delivering its verdict on the legality of detaining Tamil asylum seekers on a customs vessel for a month merely serve as reminders that the Government has implemented its "stop the boats" platform with enthusiasm and commitment.

Labor's failure to develop a credible policy to stem the flow of asylum seekers became a rallying cry for the Coalition across the 2010 and 2013 elections.

Building on the work of his predecessor John Howard in 2001, Tony Abbott transformed the issue into a mantra that split the Labor Party between their "latte sippers" and "battlers": concern about human rights and international law on one side, and resentment about taxes funding suspicious queue-jumpers on the other.

It was always a cartoon caper but it was based on real - and wicked - policy dilemmas, part of a global trade in people that could only be addressed through international coordination.

But the asylum seeker debate was rolled political gold for the Coalition, a way of convincing ordinary folk that a national government, so captive to the ebbs and flows of a global economy on jobs and growth, could actually do something to protect the national interest.

An Abbott Government would turn back the boats.

Not even their staunchest critics could deny the fervour that Abbott and his chief border protector Scott Morrison have pursued their mission. Heavy-handed? Culturally insensitive? Basely opportunist? Cruel? Sure. But Mission Accomplished.

But for all its success in delivering on its Stop the Boats promise, there seems to have been zero political dividend.

Look at the evidence. On treatment of asylum seekers - along with just about every indicator - the Coalition is running at a net negative.

Q. How would you rate the Federal Liberal-National Government for the way they have handled the following issues?

	Total good	Total poor	Net score	Don't know
Relations with other countries	33%	28%	+5	7%
Supporting Australian businesses	26%	31%	-5	10%
Treatment of asylum seekers	33%	39%	-6	8%
Managing the economy	26%	40%	-14	6%
Industrial relations	21%	36%	-15	11%
Protecting the environment	19%	42%	-23	9%
Supporting Australian jobs	19%	43%	-24	7%
Education and schools	21%	45%	-24	7%
Climate change	19%	46%	-27	9%
Social welfare	19%	47%	-28	8%
Health services	18%	49%	-31	7%

What's going on?

First, the Government's low ranking on just about every measure - Julie Bishop is the only minister holding up her corner - suggests people are unwilling to give this Government credit for anything. Even the Coalition's traditional brand strength of "managing the economy" can't muster a positive score.

Then there is the pesky issue of what to do with the poor souls who have had the right to seek asylum in Australia revoked for political purposes. Those who aren't rotting on Nauru seem to be in a pitched battle on Manus.

The Coalition's latest plan to throw $40 million at the Cambodian regime in return for taking them off our hands has won reasonable support with 44 per cent in favour.

Meanwhile, despite the draconian efforts of Morrison et al, nearly a quarter of Australians still think the government is too soft on asylum seekers. We'll repeat that - one in four Australians think the Abbott Government is TOO SOFT on asylum seekers.

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

	Total	Oct 2010	Jul 2012	Jan 2014	Mar 2014	Jul 2014
Too tough	26%	7%	12%	22%	25%	27%
Too soft	23%	63%	60%	25%	28%	18%
Taking the right approach	35%	18%	11%	35%	34%	36%
Don't know	16%	12%	17%	18%	13%	18%

Tough crowd.

Here's our take. Border protection was always a symbolic political issue, a proxy for immigration, terrorism and too much traffic in Western Sydney. It was about government taking a stand and protecting the nation from the outside world. It was made for opposition.

And when the issue was addressed it made not a jot of difference to the people who had been fired up by the slick political message. (Just like axing the carbon tax.)

Ahead of the election, there was debate about whether the temperature of the debate about stopping the boats translated into votes, compared with bread and butter issues of jobs and the economy. Whether or not people voted on the issue, it appears clear now that it isn't translating into political support for the government. Compared with the price of going to the doctor or sending your kid to university, concerns about asylum seekers are well down the list of voter concerns.

That's why - even when it did manage to keep a pre-election promise - asylum seekers are now devalued political currency for the Coalition and the Abbott Government has not been rewarded.

The survey was conducted online from January 23-26, 2015 and is based on 1020 respondents.

Peter Lewis is a director of Essential Media Communications. Jackie Woods is a communications consultant at Essential Media Communications.

Topics: government-and-politics, federal-government, immigration

Comments (200)

Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.

harvey:

28 Jan 2015 2:21:50pm

The asylum seeker issue is a fear issue. Because fear wins votes and has worked well for the LNP for many years. But even the LNP don't seem to be able to hide behind it any more.

They think by shouting " look over there at the asylum seekers ", that they can sneakily take away our good and fair health care system and our good and fair education system. And whack the pensioners on the way.

Perhaps we aren't as stupid as the LNP think. Time will tell.

But if the LNP get re-elected because magically there's a terrorist crisis in Australia in the weeks leading up to the next election, then they will have been proved right.

Alert moderator
- Gary:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:12:07pm
  
  And we mustn't forget that while the Howard government were demonising a couple of thousand asylum seekers they were opening the floodgates to other forms of immigration.
  
  Permanent arrivals increased from less than 100,000 per year in 1997 to over 200,000 in 2007. And that's not counting 457 visas, backpackers, and international 'students'.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Peter of Perth:
    
    28 Jan 2015 7:25:43pm
    
    gary- You shouldn't forget that those who come via the accepted channels have all ID etc that are needed so the government actually knows who they are, a huge difference to the boat arrivals. Howard increased the immigration intake to universal agreement and Labor didn't slow it at all and in fact Labor increased the 457 visa numbers and were bring hairdressers, cook's assistants, taxi drivers and all sorts of 'specialist' workers like welders that don't even know that they are supposed to use welding masks and instead do what they do in China and just turn their face away while they weld. My son was forced to have Asian 457 visa holders at his workplace and they weren't even able to speak English and were as rough as guts in their work. The 457 system is a very bad joke.
    
    Alert moderator
    - patarus:
      
      29 Jan 2015 8:08:59am
      
      Jobs jobs and jobs the solution to the three problems we face in our "worlds" money money money.
      
      The "boss" mentality is about solving their three biggest problems money money money.
      
      Lest face it the employer wants to reduce cost at any cost and the 457 is just one of those methods.
      
      I had a friend who worked legitimately at a "chicken" place who brought in busloads of illegals. He had to translate etc etc.
      
      I have come to not like the "boss" very much in recent employ - even though from middle management - they resent who they employ - they don't want to pay the price - and even some that may be outwardly gregarious are inwardly against who they have to employ.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Shocked Again:
      
      29 Jan 2015 10:31:57am
      
      I think that there are many votes to be gained by whichever party signals an intention to tightenup the process for 457 visas and other entries into Australia. Australia is the people who live here, not the piece of land, and there is no point to a policy that is perhaps good for employers and the economy, but which leads to lack of opportunities for Australian citizens. Above all, guys and gals, govern on behalf of those who voted for you, your existing Australian electorate.Giving people work solves many social problems in our community, which reduces government social spending. Our population is increasing at over double the rate of any other western nation, 60% of this increase in 2013 due to migration. In a complex society, we can't sustain this. Where will the money come from for housing, roads, transport, hospital beds, services etc, and we are always lagging, necessarily. A planning disaster in areas of Melbourne, for example.
      Asylum seeker policy is largely bipartisan now- either major party would interfere with it, above a mere tweaking, at their peril electorally. There may not be votes to be won here, but there sure are votes to be lost! The LNP have a big job ahead to clear the bottleneck of people who accumulated under Labor.
      
      Alert moderator
- John Coochey:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:19:47pm
  
  Harvey they said they would stop and turn back the boats ans so they did! The reason it is lower on voters concerns is because the problem has been solved so why worry about it?
  
  Alert moderator
  - Pete:
    
    29 Jan 2015 2:01:08am
    
    The first table shows the response to a question of the government's 'treatment' of refugees. It is running at a net negative, while the second table broadly illustrates Australia's positive perception of the government's 'approach' to managing refugees. The author then attempts to conflate them into a single issue ie. they're a proxy for life's frustrations (immigration, traffic congestion etc.) with the insinuation Australians aren't really that interested in the whole refugee issue, and that it holds no political capital for the government. I read the data differently: Australians take immigration/refugee policy seriously (it's not a proxy for anything), they are highly supportive of tough measures to discourage refugees self-selecting migration to Australia by paying a people smuggler but at the same time they are not entirely comfortable with the treatment of individual refugees in off shore processing centres. In short, the two questions asked in the survey ask different things, and manufacturing a phony reason to combine them is ideology, not analysis. A corrolary might be prisons and injustices that occur in prison. People completely support the idea of prison (in fact they want to send more people there for longer), but are mildly troubled by reports of corruption or violence in prison. This in no way means they don't care about prisons, or that they want to dismantle the system. They'd like to see conditions improve, but would not contemplate this at the expense of getting rid of prisons. If the author's hypothesis was correct (tough refugee policy is a proxy for other stuff), we'd be seeing the mainstream (ie. not the Greens, nor the outraged wine-sippers) wanting to backtrack on the current tougher system. This is not happening, and a government of any persuasion that reverses the new refugee policy would be doomed (as evidence: Labor aren't suggesting anything radical to change it either). Australians do not want to go back to the previous, deadly system - moreover, the data suggests they are fully willing to tolerate harsh policy to ensure this doesn't happen. That's the most logical interpretation of the survey data presented, and it fits with both Liberal and Labor policy. The author might not agree with it, but projecting sentiments that don't exist is just wishful thinking.
    
    Alert moderator
    - bkeniry:
      
      29 Jan 2015 9:10:30am
      
      You are quite correct.
      The two questions are clearly different.
      This is simply poor research and poor analysis.
      The analysis may or may not be correct, but the data does not support the analysis.
      
      If you tried to publish anything like this in a peer reviewed journal it would be immediately rejected because your question is vague and doesn't seem to represent the thing you are trying to measure
      
      Alert moderator
    - Troy T:
      
      29 Jan 2015 12:21:54pm
      
      @ Pete and @blinker,
      It appears you both fail to understand the basic intent of the article. It's sole attempt is to attack Abbott government. Some irrelevant statistical details are just an attempt to give it a veil of credibility.
      
      This is so obvious by the selection of less relevant political issues, to create perception of government unpopularity and shoddy analysis of the results.
      
      Alert moderator
    - D.G.:
      
      29 Jan 2015 1:31:53pm
      
      On the other hand, there's also no evidence to support the belief that asylum seeker policy is a significant election issue. No one can show a correlation between asylum seeker policy changes and changes in poll numbers, yet the media largely take it as a given that this issue sways significant numbers of voters.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Tom1:
    
    29 Jan 2015 9:53:24am
    
    John: The real reason the voters give the Government no credit is because they, under Howard created the farce in the first place.
    
    Had he not used the Tampa incident to incite xenophobia, in order to win an election he could have worked with Labor, and found an acceptable solution years ago.
    
    "Protecting our borders" won the last election for Abbott, and now people know he has nothing more. He is doomed!
    
    Alert moderator
    - John Coochey:
      
      29 Jan 2015 4:53:03pm
      
      We do know what is happening fifteen boats have been turned back and the boats have stopped and people have stopped drowning! When Labor came to power there were only a handful of people in detention thanks to Howard's policies. Rudd changed the policy and the boats came, the Coalition changed it back and they stopped. There is now way that can be due to push factors.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tom1:
      
      29 Jan 2015 5:31:36pm
      
      John: there is much truth in what you say. But where did this all start? You fail to comment on that.
      
      Labor's Malaysian solution surely would have deterred people from getting on boats if the Coalition had allowed that, instead of putting their election prospects first.
      
      Alert moderator
    - reaver:
      
      29 Jan 2015 9:20:40pm
      
      The so-called "Malaysia Solution" would have been no deterrent and no solution at all, Tom1. It was for only 800 people. At the time 800 asylum seekers were coming every 34 days. The asylum seekers were paying for their boat rides more than a month in advance and had no option of getting their money back. The people smugglers could simply have sent those people, telling them that the Australian government would not really do it and still continued to sell future boat trips on the basis that the 800 had already been sent. By the time that everyone knew that the government really was going to do it the 800 places would already have been filled. At the end of the day when 10,000 asylum seekers were coming in a year sending 800 of them elsewhere is a pretty useless plan. An only slightly lower percentage were drowning at sea. That was the ultimate non-entry and still did not act as a deterrent. Rudd's New Pacific Solution as executed by Abbott only works because it does not matter if you come this month or next month or the month after, you are still not getting in.
      
      Alert moderator
    - The Concerned Citizen:
      
      30 Jan 2015 9:30:43am
      
      ...and he likely would have lost the election to Labor, and his votes to One Nation, for opposing a policy that has been clearly demonstrated to be a vote-winner.
      
      Alert moderator
- the yank:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:32:14pm
  
  What is lacking on this issue is transparency. Until we actually know what has and is happening it is impossible to comment logically.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Zing:
    
    28 Jan 2015 5:47:05pm
    
    Yank. The critical information is being released. The boats are no longer arriving. The individuals in the detention camps are violent and not genuine, thus demonstrating why they should probably be deported.
    
    Further information would only benefit the left-wing, who seek to undermine our borders. The left will comment and criticise our border policies anyway. Better they comment in ignorance, so their words can be more easily dismissed.
    
    Alert moderator
    - dog tags:
      
      28 Jan 2015 7:25:43pm
      
      Yank, I agree with you. The government have purposely turned this problem into a nebulous cloud of speculation and cover up. Until the truth is exposed, we cannot comment, only speculate.
      
      Zing, I'm interested to know what makes you so certain the boats have stopped?
      
      Where did you get evidenced based information from to make such statement? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to know.
      
      Personally, I'm sceptical for the simply logical reason; that if the boats are no longer arriving, why are there all of a sudden, not enough detention centres?
      
      To say the boats have stopped but the detention centres are still overcrowded is completely illogical.
      
      As for violence in the detention centres... Zing have you been to Manus Island?
      
      Have you seen first hand, or lived in the type of accommodation these people are expected to live in, on a hot, humid, tropical island. I can tell you I have, and it takes a lot of strength of spirit to live like that for a reasonably short period of time, let alone the amount of time these people are expected to live there. Further, the reports that Doctors and other allied health workers who HAVE been there, maintain the conditions are in fact inhumane.
      
      Regardless of whether these people are genuine or not, they should not be treated like animals, no one should. The inhumane treatment takes a toll on their mental health; it would on anyone's mental health.
      
      The violence etc you see on the media is a symptom of poor mental health and pure desperation, caused by the substandard conditions they are kept in and unacceptable waiting/processing times.
      
      Remember Zing, these people are not illegal immigrants. They have a right to be heard and have a say. They shouldn't be locked up like animals for years on end while a sloppy government takes their own sweet time processing them.
      
      I guess the question you need to ask yourself Zing; is if the tables were turned, would you like to be treated the way the Australian Government treats them?
      
      I imagine the answer is no.
      
      Regardless of your political affiliations, we need to remember that these people are human beings, and have a moral right to be treated with dignity.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tom1:
      
      29 Jan 2015 9:57:48am
      
      Zing: Your comment requires a lot of assumption, and I may say, probably misplaced. This seems a disease the Government also suffers from. and for them the only cure is to sack Peta Credlin,
      
      Secrecy in government is not a good thing, and the end does not justify the means.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Peter of Perth:
    
    28 Jan 2015 7:31:51pm
    
    yank- You keep banging on about 'transparency' but everything that we need to know is being released. Do you really think that with the number of anti Abbott/Coalition government left leaning workers around the place that if anything was happening that is being kept from the public, that it wouldn't find it's way out and into the public arena? Give it a break and accept that apart from the few people like your good self that couldn't give a tiny bit of credit if your life depended it, most Australians are perfectly happy that this government have stopped the boats and aren't really concerned about the way they go about it, remembering what I said above.
    
    Alert moderator
    - the yank:
      
      29 Jan 2015 7:27:01am
      
      everything that we need to know is being released ... how can you possibly say that? This government PROMISED transparency and hasn't delivered.
      
      If I ever get comments through the new gate keeper I will continue to demand transparency.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Cyn:
      
      29 Jan 2015 10:59:07am
      
      I've got to agree with Yank on this. The first thing the Abbott government did on the issue was to restrict information flow on the subject to the media and public to the point where basically all the news about could be summed up into three words "it's going fine". Heck we know hardly anything about what's happened, they could have mined (as in the explosive kind) the asylum seeker sea lanes for all we know. I'm not say that's what happened but in comparison Labor would immediately notify the media a boat had arrived, set up a press conference and give details about the situation. With the Liberals it took about a month for us to find out that we violated Indonesia's territorial water to turn boats around.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Petyer of Perth:
      
      29 Jan 2015 3:22:50pm
      
      Cyn- The reason that we weren't being given a daily or even an hourly update as Labor was is because doing that simply keeps the people smugglers and their customers fully informed of when and where their little business was being successful and obviously gave them yet another selling point. As I have said several timers, nothing of any importance could or would be kept 'secret' simply because there is a do gooder under every rock with a camera ready to release anything, no matter how small as long as it damaged the government.
      
      Alert moderator
  - EVAN:
    
    28 Jan 2015 7:42:17pm
    
    "Until we actually know what has and is happening it is impossible to comment logically."
    
    Oh yank I think if there was a story to tell the bloodhounds of our media would have unearthed it by now.
    Try as they might with riots and lip sewing and what ever there does not seem to be to much happening.
    
    Alert moderator
- Sydney Bob:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:55:27pm
  
  When a policy can be reduced to a three word slogan you know there is not much to the policy.
  
  Alert moderator
  - gbe:
    
    28 Jan 2015 4:59:00pm
    
    Three word policy is better than labors policy as they don't have one.
    
    Alert moderator
    - prison:
      
      28 Jan 2015 5:24:39pm
      
      Labor had a policy introduced by Rudd before the election which appeared to be working but it was so disgusting and cruel that even Labor people wont mention it.
      
      I think the problem is that it seems like the only solution was going to be a hard one. The reality was that neither side of politics was intelligent enough to come up with a policy which complied with our international obligations while also dealing with the problem.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tom1:
      
      29 Jan 2015 10:03:04am
      
      prison: You are right. But you must remember that Howard created such a wedge that resounded with the community to the extent that it was a vote winner for the Coalition for years.
      
      Now people are thankful that the boats have stopped, but fail to laud the Coalition, except those that are desperate to find achievements to speak of, that they are are a bit embarrassed about the methods.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dave:
      
      28 Jan 2015 5:33:56pm
      
      Labor's policy will be the same as 2013, and they've left themselves wiggle room to hang onto the orange boats. Labor will be 'in lockstep' with the Liberals on this issue next election. They've been wedged on this issue more than enough.
      
      Alert moderator
    - EVAN:
      
      28 Jan 2015 7:46:28pm
      
      Dave the boat people problem for Labor is like the work choices problem is for the LNP.Doesn't matter how many times you denigh it people won't believe you.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Kanooka:
      
      28 Jan 2015 8:28:27pm
      
      "in lockstep" Just as Tony was going to be with Labor on Education and health prior to becoming PM??
      
      The main problem the "left" has, is that they actually care about all people, not just those who are of use to them.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dace76:
      
      28 Jan 2015 8:52:07pm
      
      While I don't support the current policy, I do thank every day of my existence I was born in Australia and not one of those desperate people looking for a new peaceful life.
      
      I agree with Dave though, politically the "problem" has been solved, all be it not in the most intelligent way. It has been solved because the first government to change the status quo will be voted out at the next election.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tom1:
      
      29 Jan 2015 10:05:47am
      
      gbe: Funny how a stupid 13 word comment, factually untrue,can elicit so much comment.
      
      Alert moderator
- mike:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:58:27pm
  
  No, it is a fairness issue and a humanitarian issue. A fairness issue because it is unfair to let in boatpeople in place of those waiting in refugee camps who can't afford the tens of thousands to pay a people smuggler, and a humanitarian issue because thousands drowned trying to get here in leaky boats. The reason the poll in question appeared to show no support for the current government's policy is because it was framed as "treatment of asylum seekers" as opposed to "stopping the boats" or "stopping the drownings". A poll can give all sorts of results depending on how the questions are phrased.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Dove:
    
    28 Jan 2015 5:04:30pm
    
    I believe that stopping boats and the treatment of asylum seekers are two different issues. Stopping the boats comes about through our processing and settlement policies. How we treat people whilst they are in our care, regardless of the outcome of their application, is a different topic. I believe we should be swift, non punitive and show consideration and compassion to those we either deny entry to or settle offshore.
    
    Alert moderator
    - tez:
      
      28 Jan 2015 5:20:30pm
      
      for all the comment and emotion about this issue your post put the issue into perspective. thanks.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Mathew:
      
      28 Jan 2015 8:37:51pm
      
      I agree we should exercise compassion towards refugees, however my opinion is that if you offer people the slightest hope of resettlement in Australia then the boats will start arriving again.
      
      As for the subject of swift decisions, the decisions also need to be fair. I appreciate it is unreasonable to expect people to arrive with documented evidence, but clearly substantiating claims is not a simple exercise and requires time. The appeals process only serves to lengthen the process.
      
      I would argue that continual media attention in Australia (e.g. lip sewing) only serves to increase the pressure on asylum seekers to ever more outrageous actions. Clearly these are desperate people who have invested much and risked much to travel to Australia and they face being settled in a third world country rather than the first world country they were seeking.
      
      One option would be to have Australian Embassies offer a temporary protection visa to anyone who has a reasonable claim to asylum. To argue that people only deserve special treatment when they've paid people smugglers thousands for a place on a boat to Australia is hypocrisy.
      
      Alert moderator
    - reaver:
      
      29 Jan 2015 1:54:35pm
      
      That would not only be politically impossible, but logistically impossible, Mathew. There are over 50 million displaced persons around the world. Australia would not be able to host even a small fraction of them, even on a temporary basis and on the conditions of Temporary Protection Visas.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Mathew:
      
      29 Jan 2015 6:32:30pm
      
      @reaver
      If we accept that offering every displaced person a safe haven in Australia is not possible, the question becomes: "Do we offer preferential treatment to people who travel to Australia by boat encouraging them to undertake risky journeys or do we state is the only path is via a UNHCR process?"
      
      Alert moderator
    - reaver:
      
      29 Jan 2015 7:38:56pm
      
      Of course we do not give preferential treatment to those people, Mathew, which is why we now have control over who comes combined with a limited number of humanitarian places given to people chosen by us. It simply is not a choice between accepting unlimited numbers through open borders and accepting unlimited numbers through Temporary Protection Visas handed out at embassies. Not only is it not a choice between those two options, but those two options are not even on the table. Neither would be remotely acceptable to the Australian electorate.
      
      Alert moderator
- IMBY:
  
  28 Jan 2015 4:15:53pm
  
  There is very little to look over there at now.
  When was the last successful attempt to Australia by boat?
  When was the last mass death due to our asylum policy?
  
  This is one area the govenment has handled well. Now that the problem is fixed, voters want other problems addressed. The Liberals cant carp on about a success or failure forever.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Lucy (original):
    
    29 Jan 2015 12:08:07am
    
    IMBY 28 Jan 4:15:53 pm.
    
    Read the article: I quote:
    
    ......................................
    "It is understood asylum seekers tried to reach Australia by boat over the summer, leaving from both Sri Lanka and Indonesia with up to 15 boat returns, some of which happened in the past six weeks.
    
    However, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell said there had been no successful boat arrivals in Australia for six months.
    
    ....... people smugglers are becoming increasingly desperate and seeking to make the dangerous voyage to Australia to any vulnerable community that they can
    
    He (Angus Campbell) said the Sovereign Borders campaign was still relevant because people smugglers were continuing to offer voyages to Australia to new groups of would-be passengers.
    
    "People smugglers are seeking any market that they can find and they are pursuing any community that they think might be vulnerable to [what is] essentially a sales pitch," he said.
    
    Lieutenant General Campbell said only one vessel had arrived in Australia in 2014 and all those aboard that vessel were transferred to Nauru."
    
    The boats have not stopped, and only one has been successful".
    (end of quote) .................................
    The cost to Australia of maintaining (indefinitely) the Morrison/Abbott policy is enormous. The likelihood of deaths at sea remains. The people smugglers are not deterred. The problem is not fixed. It will remain for as long as millions of desperate people roam oppressed and homeless on the surface of the Earth.
    
    Alert moderator
    - IMBY:
      
      29 Jan 2015 8:27:30am
      
      The assumption is that only refugees claim Asylum. Plenty are economic migrants and many refugees pose an increased threat due to a lifetime of living in violence.
      
      Even for the minority of genuine applicants australia should still decide whether it wishes to help and not have people smugglers decide for us.
      
      Alert moderator
- mack:
  
  28 Jan 2015 6:33:37pm
  
  That's just lazy thinking, Harvey.
  
  We don't have an "asylum seeker" issue: we have a "boat people" issue.
  
  The electorate is not scared that boat people "can sneakily take away our good and fair health care system and our good and fair education system". If a boat person doesn't take the resettlement place, then that place is allocated through our offshore resettlement program.
  
  Finally, surveys have shown for decades that the electorate is highly supportive of our refugee resettlement program. The same surveys consistently show that the electorate does not support the notion of allowing boat people to pay a people smuggler to gain access to our scarce humanitarian resettlement places, at the expense of refugees in offshore refugee camps.
  
  After all, if the UNHCR recommends refugees for resettlement in western nations on the basis of "most in need", why wouldn't we use the same principle to allocate scarce places in our own humanitarian program?
  
  Alert moderator
- Eeyore:
  
  28 Jan 2015 11:21:26pm
  
  Am I being cynical or is the rare announcement of Lieutenant General Angus Campbell today an attempt to revitalise that fear and distract from Tony Abbott's recent very poor performance?
  
  "As each month passes without such a venture, people smugglers are becoming increasingly desperate and seeking to make the dangerous voyage to Australia to any vulnerable community that they can."
  
  Vigilance people - we still need the mighty Uncle Tone to protect us
  
  Alert moderator
- The Concerned Citizen:
  
  30 Jan 2015 9:22:19am
  
  Stopping asylum seekers getting into Australia is simply a policy the public supports.
  However, there are two things the Liberals are failing to realize.
  
  1- this policy will ONLY help them beat Labor until Labor endorses this policy themselves, and the people believe they are serious about it (wasn't so last election- due to Labor's spending a decade in opposition due to being stupid enough to oppose it- until very recently).
  
  2- people regard workplace rights (and I would wager medical rights) as considerably more important issues. People were not willing to trade job security for border security back when John Howard introduced workchoices.
  
  Fact is, we don't actually NEED the Liberals to 'stop the boats', because many other parties- including Labor- pledge to do the very same. If that's the case, then parties are forced to support border protection in general to have a chance at all- but focus on other issues if they hope to win the election.
  
  Alert moderator
reaver:

28 Jan 2015 2:22:23pm

Of course the government is not getting kudos for their asylum policies. Controlling the entry of foreign nationals into Australia is the bare minimum expected. Expecting kudos for doing that is like expecting a round of applause for washing your hands after going to the toilet. The only time it becomes an issue is when it becomes obvious that you are not doing it.

Alert moderator
- Peter of Melbourne:
  
  28 Jan 2015 2:38:39pm
  
  agreed reaver.
  
  we expect the government to control entry into our nation so that undesirables do not enter. sadly the morons of the labor party allowed such undesirables unlimited entry into this nation leading to massive welfare, education and healthcare burdens which the rest of the people of this nation will have to carry.
  
  it is now a well proven fact that the vast majority of the uneducated, unwashed countryshoppers which were allowed entry into this country will never contribute to it in any meaningful way. well the lunatic fringe had their worthless egos stroked, oh and the countryshoppers can hold rallies in lakemba demanding we bow down to their stupid islamic ideology or they will murder us in our sleep... like i said meaningless.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Zing:
    
    28 Jan 2015 3:04:23pm
    
    To be fair, both governments dropped the ball on border control policy for far too long.
    
    The Howard government was complacent, so it didn't see any reason to rock the boat. The Labor party draws their votes from the left, so making the change was politically impossible for them during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd-II administration - especially, once they ended up in a green/labor coalition.
    
    Things changed when the Abbott government got in charge. By that point, the majority of the population had grown annoyed enough to want action. Now the policies have been changed, I think it's very unlikely that Labor will undo them. They probably thank Abbott under their breath for doing them a favour.
    
    Alert moderator
  - ThatFlemingGent:
    
    28 Jan 2015 3:05:11pm
    
    "it is now a well proven fact that the vast majority of the uneducated, unwashed countryshoppers which were allowed entry into this country will never contribute to it in any meaningful way."
    
    Care to cite evidence for this "well proven fact" or are you trying to polish this turd of a policy by inventing "facts" and screaming them over and over in the hope that mugs will buy them?
    
    If you want to see the uneducated and unwashed you need only look in your mirror or at your fellow apologists for this cruel, sick joke of a policy
    
    Alert moderator
  - Gary:
    
    28 Jan 2015 3:09:11pm
    
    Actually the Labor Party did try to stop the flow with the Malaysia Solution. Which the LNP blocked purely for cynical political gain. The majority of refugees arrived after that when the people smugglers realised the LNP were going to block any attempts to stop them.
    
    Alert moderator
    - RacerX:
      
      30 Jan 2015 12:09:23pm
      
      Gary, The Greens, you know Labor's coalition partners in government would not support a Malaysia solution either.
      
      Also, can you please tell us how sending the next 800 to Malaysia was going to help when that was only one months worth of arrivals. So perhaps tell us what was the plan the next month?
      
      Alert moderator
  - Monty B:
    
    28 Jan 2015 3:12:11pm
    
    Thank you for sharing your facts. Indeed your `proven facts`.
    
    Can you please cite a dollar figure on exactly how much `massive welfare` these unwashed types cost us each year?
    
    Alert moderator
  - the yank:
    
    28 Jan 2015 3:35:18pm
    
    Yes Labor didn't handle the issue very well but how do you know what the LNP have done?
    
    The truth is neither of us do. That for me is the issue and until it is answered we can neither pat them on the back nor criticize them.
    
    You do realise that the lunatic fringe of Islam could just fly here they don't have to go through the hassle of getting into a leaky boat.
    
    Alert moderator
    - mortan:
      
      28 Jan 2015 4:57:25pm
      
      Would it be a concern that labor may return to the policy you have said you were less than happy with.
      
      Alert moderator
    - the yank:
      
      29 Jan 2015 7:31:20am
      
      I will try again. The new moderator seems unwilling to allow people to respond.
      
      That all depends on what the commission finds. You are asking me a question that can't be really answered because we do not know what has been done and whether or not boats have actually been stopped. They have from reaching Australia but it seems they are still trying.
      
      We are spending billions on this effort. I'd want a full and frank discussion before I commit to the present approach.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Rex Smith:
    
    28 Jan 2015 4:16:31pm
    
    Your comment has a serious case of Poe's Law.You're either a brilliant satirist, or hold some views which I very strongly disagree with.
    
    In the (hopefully) wrong case that you are actually serious, I would like to see your sources of these "proven facts". You sprout some very bold claims, but I see no evidence to back it up.
    
    Alert moderator
  - PEarn:
    
    28 Jan 2015 4:42:55pm
    
    Seriously? "Undesirables uneducated, unwashed countryshoppers" What an appalling lack of empathy you have.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Trev:
      
      29 Jan 2015 1:25:20am
      
      The truth sometimes hurts.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Gilbert:
      
      29 Jan 2015 5:53:34pm
      
      What was wrong with the solution the Nazi's thought up to unwanted and unwelcomed people, since you are for a strong solution why not that one, where's your courage, because that is the same moral argument, your argument.
      
      Alert moderator
- Monty B:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:07:35pm
  
  They imagined appealing to the redneck vote would be enough to distract people from their unfair budget.
  
  Alert moderator
- virgil:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:10:51pm
  
  Sort of ironic reaver that one of the main issues that got this government into power, and one of the few it has prosecuted successfully since coming to power, is now not the vote winner it once was because of the government's success.
  
  I just think many people have realised that Stopping the Boats had no effect on their daily lives whatsoever.
  
  Alert moderator
  - EVAN:
    
    28 Jan 2015 7:54:37pm
    
    I guess we will just have to wait till the next election to see if the prospect of the people smuggling trade starting up again has any traction.
    
    Alert moderator
hairy nosed wombat:

28 Jan 2015 2:22:25pm

"Border protection was always a symbolic political issue, a proxy for immigration, terrorism and too much traffic in Western Sydney."

That's the truth of it. And I think people realise now that most immigration wasn't occurring via boats and that amongst the first things this government did was to greatly further increase immigration. Immigration remains the elephant in the room in Australian politics - it is no less a concern here than in Europe. The "boat people" problem was to some extent just a proxy which allowed to people to adopt attitudes they would have otherwise felt uncomfortable about directing at those who had legally immigrated.

Alert moderator
- IMBY:
  
  28 Jan 2015 4:18:38pm
  
  Symbolic?
  Its something that is expected. The most obvious example of expectation by state governments is drinking water.
  
  No one really cares what is happening unless there is a price rise. If a government fails to give a city water because the whole dam has run out, there is suddenly a huge issue.
  
  Much like with boat arrivals. Until there is a rise or much worse a death its a non-issue. As soon as there is a basic expectation of our government to control how many and who enters is breached and it becomes a huge issue.
  
  Alert moderator
Alpo:

28 Jan 2015 2:27:36pm

This Government are clearly putting all their eggs in the basket of National Security (the boats, ISIL, internal terrorism, etc.).

Will this be a winning strategy at the election?... NO! Why? Because the threat is not and it has never been a real one. We have never been "swamped" by thousands of boats carrying hundreds of thousands of aggressive refugees trying to takeover the country, nor have we been bombed and machine-gunned to submission by Islamic extremists. The Liberal brouhaha is just a small core of truth multiplied by 10 thousand through propaganda and scaremongering.

That's why the People are really turning to the issues that are affecting them in earnest in their day-to-day lives: services, jobs, Medicare, salaries, penalty rates, GST-costs of living, workplace relations and job security, the environment, etc. This Government is failing dismally on all of them!

Alert moderator
- some kid:
  
  28 Jan 2015 4:52:34pm
  
  Spot on! It has to be the biggest molehill-to-mountain vote grabber of all time.
  As a side note I'd just like to add, if a boat is turned back, how does anyone know it actually gets back?
  
  Alert moderator
A pocketful of wry:

28 Jan 2015 2:32:33pm

I'm sure someone smarter than me will be able to explain how the individual questions in the first table, after recording "total good", "total bad", and "don't know", only manage to add up a maximum of 80% (the asylum question) and a minimum of 67% (the Australian businesses question).

Unless there's something going on that I'm not aware of, I didn't think there was another answer to questions of this sort apart from "Yeah, grouse", "Nah, shithouse", and "Dunno, what's it to you anyway?".

Alert moderator
- fredn:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:05:55pm
  
  Wry, can I claim to be smarter than you?
  
  If you went to the Essential Media Communications website you would find the missing numbers are for "The government's handling of ... was average".
  
  That is, for example, 20% of those polled thought the governments handling of "Treatment of asylum seekers" was Average, neither good nor bad.
  
  Nothing going on at all. Amazing what is on this Internet thingy.
  
  Alert moderator
  - A pocketful of wry:
    
    28 Jan 2015 5:27:12pm
    
    I save my ego for more serious matters fredn, so I'm more than happy to officially pronounce you smarter than me. Unfortunately, I don't do knighthoods. Sorry.
    
    You can play double-or-nothing on that prize if you want to give me a coherent, believable explanation as to why, if you were someone who was going to present and discuss your results in binary fashion, "average" doesn't ultimately fit into either a "good" or "bad" column (and it depends on your viewpoint - if you reckon all governments are rubbish it'd be equivalent to "bad", and correspondingly "good" if you thought all governments were basically okay). In any event, if you're really serious about stats like Messrs Lewis and Woods claim to be, you'd at least go to the trouble of putting the numbers onto the table rather than relying on smart people like your good self having to waste their time hunting for them. And maybe even leaving off the binary extrapolations if they were really, really serious.
    
    Alert moderator
- Marko:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:29:26pm
  
  I have looked at the Essential Media site and it appears the missing percentage is the "neither good nor bad" column.
  
  This would suggest to me that a significant number (up to 20%) are comfortable or at worst ambivalent with the arrangements.
  
  Alert moderator
- whohasthefish:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:40:29pm
  
  The missing answer may be 'happy with the status quo' or 'neither here, nor there'. Either way Lewis and Woods could do us all the courtesy of publishing the entire results. It does seem to open up the possibility that the results were cherry picked.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Stuffed Olive:
    
    28 Jan 2015 4:55:01pm
    
    That is not in their business interest, i.e. to publish false or cherry picked information - that is the realm of the IPA. What bits do you think are missing whohasthefish?
    
    Alert moderator
Dave:

28 Jan 2015 2:33:40pm

Putting aside rights and wrongs, the Liberals have delivered on the commitment they gave. They implemented most of their policy from opposition by mid 2013 anyway, Labor can technically claim to have put most of the "successful" measures in place although the basis for the policy is clearly associated by voters as being the Liberals' strategy.

Ironically, it could prove very costly for Abbott. With discussion increasingly turning to alternative Liberal leaders, Morrison's name is up there with Turnbull and Bishop based on his reputation on "solving the boats".

Alert moderator
- anote:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:19:07pm
  
  The rights and wrongs are an integral part of the Coalition's woes.
  
  Yes it is true that the Government has delivered key elements of its pre-election mantra. However, that measure of success alone is relatively self-serving. They had a 'mandate' for those few things but many strongly disapproved and many that approved the aims disapproved the means.
  
  The plaintive cry "C'mon guys, we axed the tax and stopped the boats." and claims of success are neither success in terms of respect for the constituents nor deserving of respect from the constituents. It is an attempt to claim kudos for delivering on a unanimity that never was and distract attention from the issues underlying the widespread lack of respect and deny all responsibly for that mutual lack of respect.
  
  Hey look at this.
  
  Alert moderator
- sidlaw:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:45:54pm
  
  Dave,
  'Labor can technically claim to have put most of the "successful" measures in place although the basis for the policy is clearly associated by voters as being the Liberals' strategy.'
  
  You are a comedian!
  
  Alert moderator
  - Dave:
    
    28 Jan 2015 10:09:37pm
    
    I've read your comment a bunch of times sidlaw and I can't work out if your having a go from the right or from the left. Are you saying that most of the existing boatpeople policy was not in place by August 2013, some orange boats being the single exception? Because history disagrees with you if that's what you're saying.
    
    Alert moderator
- Bob42:
  
  28 Jan 2015 6:00:47pm
  
  Putting aside rights and wrongs, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is a fine upstanding human, since you are putting aside rights and wrongs.
  
  Alert moderator
SueB:

28 Jan 2015 2:35:34pm

Stopping the boats isn't a current issue. However, wait until the next election; the LNP will ramp it up as a contrast to the opposition, especially the greens.

As much as some people liked to scream racist every time a boat was turned or when those granted refugee status are settled in PNG, the boat people issue is an economic one.

I believe that Australian taxpayers don't like self selection, especially when their taxes are paying for it. They don't like to see poverty and homelessness or regions with high unemployment and poor health services while economic migrants pay smugglers to come here.

They want to see their refugee and aid dollars spent on refugee camps.

Alert moderator
Jaspez Perth:

28 Jan 2015 2:38:21pm

Not the boats again, please.

Alert moderator
- Waterloo Sunset 2016dd:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:36:15pm
  
  The Left won't let us forget them, even when there are none!
  
  Alert moderator
  - Stuffed Olive:
    
    28 Jan 2015 4:56:32pm
    
    Probably in a different ocean or water not patrolled by us. Certainly plenty in the Mediterranean.
    
    Alert moderator
    - reaver:
      
      28 Jan 2015 6:39:28pm
      
      And what have they to do with us, Olive, if they are in the Mediterranean? Australian elections are won or lost based on Australian issues, not on events that do not involve us and are happening on the other side of the planet.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dace76:
      
      28 Jan 2015 9:07:57pm
      
      It would still be good to see how another country "handles" a boat people problem and if their method unites or divides their country now and into the future. More importantly how their leadership either leads or is lead by media and opinion.
      
      Especially given the debate on this topic is dead until at least 2016 and perhaps beyond in Australia.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Big M:
      
      29 Jan 2015 12:18:04am
      
      Reaver, that's 'an on water matter', so it's none of our business.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      29 Jan 2015 9:11:10am
      
      Logic fails you yet again reaver. Making it someone else's problem does not mean it has gone away.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Waterloo Sunset 2016dd:
      
      29 Jan 2015 10:32:43am
      
      We can't cure it; just treat it.
      
      Alert moderator
    - reaver:
      
      29 Jan 2015 12:16:30pm
      
      Asylum seekers, just like everyone else, react to incentives and disincentives, Olive. When we incentivised coming here by boat to seek asylum they came here instead of going elsewhere. Now that we have removed that incentive they are no longer coming. If Europe wishes to keep in place its incentives to go there then that is Europe's business. If they were to remove their incentives then that would effect the movement of asylum seekers into Europe. The fact that we have chosen to remove our incentives and Europe has chosen not to remove their incentives does not mean that we are making asylum seekers their problem. That is a choice that they are making through their laws and policies, not one that we are making for them through ours.
      By the simply, basic definitions of the words and the concept the problem has gone away. It has move away from us. Gone. Away. That is the entire point of the exercise.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      29 Jan 2015 3:47:30pm
      
      As you would expect I don't agree with your logic reaver. No such word as 'incentivised' by the way. This year our government advertises for 190,000 'regular migrants' to come here. I really don't understand why there is no outcry about this.
      
      Alert moderator
    - reaver:
      
      29 Jan 2015 5:46:36pm
      
      Logic exists. If you disagree with logic it still remains logic. Disagreeing with logic is like disagreeing with tides- you can disagree but the tide still comes in.
      Incentivised is a word. Alternative spelling: incentivized. Definition: past tense of incentivise. It seems that you are the only one who does not know this.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      30 Jan 2015 7:38:01am
      
      John Howard made it up (incentivisation) - amazing if it made it into the dictionary - it is not in mine. An incentive is an incentive, a noun. Reaver, logic for you is like 'a dog has four legs, a cat has four legs therefore a cat is a dog'.
      
      Alert moderator
NT James:

28 Jan 2015 2:39:26pm

No too sure I agree with your analysis of the boats issue. In the top survey, of the issues the government has handled, the boat issue has been OK compared to the rest and its near the top of the list. The reason for the governments poor perception is the rest of the issues.

Alert moderator
ibast:

28 Jan 2015 2:40:19pm

You need to think about the demographic that "they're taking our jewbs" and "axe the tax" appeals to. Then think about all the other policies that the government has introduced and who is most disadvantaged by them.

It is little wonder that those things don't seem that important anymore to them.

Alert moderator
Jake:

28 Jan 2015 2:40:21pm

The Left are defeated on this issue they have got "Nothing" so it is predictable that columes like this will now start appearing after the job was done. Before the job was done columes squawked about humanity, people being burnt by Navy personell, orange life boats, tow backs etc etc. What this piece does not explore is whether Australian voters want to give this responsiblity back to Labor/Greens. At the next election TA will get his votes from just that, no-one wants the 50,000 refugees and 1200+ deaths again, and they know Labor has not got the mettle to say NO to the Greens...

Alert moderator
- Dave:
  
  28 Jan 2015 3:22:00pm
  
  "they know Labor has not got the mettle to say NO to the Greens"
  
  Except that very large chunks of the existing policy were brought in by a Labor government, admittedly in its dying days. Labor can say their policy in 2016 will be the same as their policy in 2013, or in other words the status quo. Labor's deliberately keeping open options around orange boats too!
  
  Without a boat in sight for some time (the election is another 18 months away) you are overrating this as a vote changer.
  
  Alert moderator
- cathy:
  
  28 Jan 2015 4:38:06pm
  
  Goodness gracious how did you get that posted they must be on a coffee brake. Well done !!!
  
  Alert moderator
- sdrawkcaB:
  
  28 Jan 2015 4:41:35pm
  
  I have put a bit of research into this topic.
  
  In my opinion, both sides have stuffed it up.
  
  The ALP too soft, and the LNP too expensive and too immoral.
  
  Now,
  If we go and get them from their camps and process them onshore, we can do it for a fifth the price.
  
  If we use the UNHCR assessments and not our own, we find 30 odd percent of asylum seekers are actually refugees and not 99% as our public service would have it.
  
  The price saving though proper assessment and humane processing is billions...its a few world class hospitals per electoral cycle or Gonski in its entirety with some spare change to feed our unemployed for the full year and not half of it.
  
  The only matter up for grabs is what to do with those that do opt for a ten grand leaky boat ticket and 'accidently' lose their passports and phone along the way.
  
  My suggestion would be to house them on Christmas Island indefinitely (since Christmas Island will empty of genuine refugees for places like Northam) and provide a level of luxury we afford our soldiers when in the field. When they finally work out they are not going anywhere and have been caught out, they can put their hand up and 'choose' to get a free ride on the next RAAF Hercules back to where they came from.
  
  So there you have it, for far less cost we can look after those who need looking after and thumb our nose at those trying to buck the system. Also, we as a very wealthy nation, have no need to dump our rubbish onto poorer and less able nations.
  
  The challenge for the ALP and Greens is to present an evidence and fact based policy to the public and be prepared to argue against a very successful kindergarten level 4 word slogan. Maybe they could start with the parliamentary budget office and commit to infrastructure spending with the savings rather then using it to fund their wedding attendances and trips to Cairns to buy Rental Properties.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Dave:
    
    28 Jan 2015 5:30:42pm
    
    "The ALP too soft"
    
    Labor's 2007 policy was too soft. Labor's 2010 position was changing and there was not much daylight between the major parties in 2013. Labor isn't going to let itself get wedged on the issue again, that's for sure.
    
    So now it's just the Greens who are too soft.
    
    Alert moderator
    - sdrawkcaB:
      
      28 Jan 2015 6:09:14pm
      
      Fair enough.
      
      Either way, through the uselessness of politicians or the media (or the stupidity of the public) , we are paying far too much on a poor refugee policy.
      
      If it was put to the voting population that there is way to pay less, help those in need, and lock out the economic refugees, it would get far more support then the current effort from all current political parties.
      
      Alert moderator
    - din:
      
      28 Jan 2015 6:14:24pm
      
      I agree. Labor started manus island. Labor said no one,regardless of their situation, will end up in Australia.
      
      no one will end up Australia sounds harsh to me.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dave:
      
      28 Jan 2015 7:22:27pm
      
      "no one will end up Australia sounds harsh to me."
      
      And that's a perfectly valid opinion you're entitled to have. My point is that if you want to vote for a party which represents that viewpoint you won't be voting either Labor or Liberal and whichever party forms government will disappoint you.
      
      Alert moderator
- Mark D.:
  
  28 Jan 2015 10:37:56pm
  
  The issue is rather straight forward.
  
  This issue is not something which translates to votes, either for the LNP, Labour or the Greens.
  
  As such - discussing this is just another yawn by everyone.
  
  Nobody gives a damn about Labour policy except the LNP supporters who ** expect it ** to be a vote winner but alas, it is ** Not ** a vote winner.
  
  Alert moderator
mayday:

28 Jan 2015 2:45:27pm

1 in 4 Australians think this government is too soft on asylum seekers? Yeah I guess human rights are pretty overrated anyway.

Alert moderator
- IMBY:
  
  28 Jan 2015 4:22:33pm
  
  Change asylum seekers with economic migrants who pay criminals and you may start to gain an understanding of why a quarter believes we are too soft.
  
  Australia still offers better conditions and shorter waiting times than UN refugee camps. How that translates to self harm? Well I would like to see Julian Burnside try and explain that in contrast to a UN refugee camp.
  
  Alert moderator
- APM:
  
  28 Jan 2015 4:42:17pm
  
  'Human rights' are simply a platitude for Left wing politics. The near religious adherents fail the practicality test in this case by: not being realistically able to determine who is genuine; encourage fraudulent claims; encourage people to risk their lives for cash; asylum seekers seem to have no responsibilities and get away with criminality; there is no conceived limit on numbers no matter that host countries could be overwhelmed. The present government has solved these problems caused by human rights religion.
  
  The PNG leader said yesterday that most asylum seekers are 'economic opportunists'. Rudd and Carr from the Left of politics have said the same in the past.
  
  Alert moderator
- mayday:
  
  28 Jan 2015 5:13:06pm
  
  If the quarter believes we are too soft on asylum seekers because they are all 'economic migrants' then they are easily fooled.
  
  Australia has human rights obligations and that means we must follow them all of the time. Our failure to meet our obligations is an embarrassment to us on an international level.
  
  Alert moderator
  - AlthredTheUnready:
    
    28 Jan 2015 6:08:21pm
    
    and so why should we believe you? (since we're so easily fooled)
    
    Alert moderator
    - Mayday:
      
      28 Jan 2015 9:44:18pm
      
      Not asking you to believe me. Bob Carr was criticised for making those comments at a time where virtually no claims were being processed and therefore the reasons for people coming to Australia were unknown.
      
      Alert moderator
- Mark D.:
  
  28 Jan 2015 11:37:31pm
  
  People who are willing to bet their very lives in order to seek for freedom and a place of safety are people that will fight for those things. They are either very desperate or very determined.
  
  The policy of a hard hand says "If we make the choice so harsh, the people will not come."
  
  But if you are willing to risk your very life, then this is hardly a deterrent ... except for those who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
  If they did, they would realize that 1200 deaths at seas is a greater deterrent than any we can produce.
  
  No wonder the deterrent approach did not work.
  
  And these people have only one tool, a whip hand to punish. So they are trying to "up" the deterrent.
  It does not shock me shock me that 1/4 of the people are brain dead. In actual fact, it is probably about 2/3.
  
  Einstein on the ignorant and the stupid is ... rather telling.
  
  Alert moderator
  - reaver:
    
    29 Jan 2015 12:28:49pm
    
    The deterrent policy is working, Mark D. That has become obvious over the past year. The theory that you and many other asylum seeker advocates have, the theory that asylum seekers will keep coming to Australia by boat because they have the option of coming to Australia by boat or staying in their own countries to be persecuted (or impoverished or at risk of war, et al), is flawed in that those are not the only two options. Once outside of their own countries the vast majority of the asylum seekers who had and have the option of travelling toward Australia had and have the option of travelling elsewhere, such as to Europe. The UNHCR's statistics on asylum claims in industrialised countries in 2014 have shown that asylum seekers are taking those other options instead of trying for Australia. While the rest of the industrialised world as a whole has experienced a 25% increase in asylum claims, Australia has experienced a 25% fall in asylum claims.
    The 1,200 deaths at sea was never a deterrent. The asylum seekers had a 4% chance of dying at sea and a 90% chance of being allowed to live in Australia if they arrived here. It was a good gamble so tens of thousands took it.
    
    Alert moderator
Keith Lethbridge Snr:

28 Jan 2015 2:47:50pm

G'day Peter & Jackie.

Thanks for your article.

"Border protection was always a symbolic political issue, a proxy for immigration, terrorism and too much traffic in Western Sydney." I assume that means you rate border protection as being of little importance. Likewise population.

However, if you care about Climate Change, species extinction, wars, pestilence and/or extreme poverty, then it would be worthwhile considering the role of human population. This is doubling about every 40 years, with devastating effect; perhaps not for you personally, nor for me, but devastating nevertheless.

Until global agreement is reached (if ever) on sustainable population levels & how to achieve them, then border protection is a really good idea. Other types of immigration must also be considered, modified & regulated.

Democratic governments have great difficulty in planning for the medium or the long term. They are required to please voters now, not in 40 years' time. However, border control will be necessary for some time yet, until the plague is over. That's the plague of us, the human race, the current scourge of Planet Earth. (Cute little creatures, but they breed far too fast.)

Regards,

Cobber

Alert moderator
- Jim:
  
  28 Jan 2015 4:11:15pm
  
  Basically we need to consider our future as a people before we consider changing our demographics. We need to ask 'to be or not to be?' Do we want to replace ourselves or do we want our grand kids to look like us? Only then can we have a proper political debate.
  
  Alert moderator
- gerard oosterman:
  
  28 Jan 2015 4:14:28pm
  
  Hey Cobber;
  
  How does border control stop increase in world's population? If anything, helping people to a better life with a better education one might well come to believe the poor and disadvantaged will be better equipped to handle birth control.
  Emigration or accepting more people does not increase the world's population they are already here, in this world.
  Regards,
  
  Reffo
  
  Alert moderator
  - Waterloo Sunset 2016dd:
    
    28 Jan 2015 4:53:27pm
    
    Well, it works in the same way as the Carbon Tax and ETS.
    
    You know the systems that are stopping pollution?
    
    Once countries announce the truth; 'in that they are already full up', the truth might sink in and instead of over breeding and planning to bring over all the thousands of rellies, waiting in the wings, citizens of the world would start to breed commensurate with their environment.
    
    It's the sort of blunt education that teachers and parents have been giving out to children over eons.
    
    Yes, "education" is definitely what's needed.
    
    We should cease all immigration, in my view. it's just practical, sensible and necessary.
    
    Imagine a sustainable world, instead of millions of people heaving and complaining, spitting and exhaling; polluting and gobbling; burning and theiving? What a wonderful dream.
    
    Alert moderator
    - gerard oosterman:
      
      28 Jan 2015 5:41:48pm
      
      Yes, but did you not migrate to Australia?
      
      And what about the over million of Australians that have chosen to immigrate and live elsewhere.
      
      If other countries followed your example of stopping immigration, what would happen to Australians seeking happiness elsewhere?
      
      Alert moderator
    - reaver:
      
      28 Jan 2015 6:48:00pm
      
      gerard, you are assuming that a system could not be put in place in which the citizens of selected first world countries could move between those countries on a one-for-one basis- one Australian citizen moves to New Zealand when one New Zealand citizen moves to Australia, for example, with each receiving country approving each "swap". Under such a system there would be no net population increase and the useful individuals would still be free to move with little restriction.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Southern Cross Tattoo:
      
      28 Jan 2015 6:48:31pm
      
      One quarter of the Australian population was born overseas. That's more than 5 million! 5 divided by 1 is 5!
      
      Therefore Australia is 5 times better than the rest of the world!!!
      
      Oi Oi Oi!
      
      Alert moderator
    - Waterloo Sunset 2016dd:
      
      28 Jan 2015 8:23:41pm
      
      Well, hopefully the population would decrease.
      
      That would be a good thing wouldn't it?
      
      Alert moderator
  - earthfan:
    
    29 Jan 2015 2:57:21am
    
    If a couple in an undeveloped country sees its neighbours receiving remittances from a son or daughter who has attained permanent residency in Australia, either as a refugee or otherwise, how does that encourage them to restrain their own baby-making?
    
    Alert moderator
- hairy nosed wombat:
  
  28 Jan 2015 4:16:42pm
  
  Keith, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Most Australians do not want a bigger Australia, and resent our current rate of immigration. And this is a position that doesn't readily fit any political divide. The far right don't like immigration because they are bigots. Folks on the left oppose it on environmental grounds (and because they are bigots but don't recognise themselves as such). Most of the rest of us are just over the traffic and having to fight with too many people for a spot on the beach on the weekend.
  
  Alert moderator
toorightmate:

28 Jan 2015 3:07:46pm

The majority of people on the boats were NOT asylum seekers.
They were lining up for the great Australian handout for doing nothing.

Alert moderator
Tropical:

28 Jan 2015 3:11:36pm

And in breaking news: Julian Burnside and his illegal immigrant advocacy industry have been dealt a excellent defeat in the High Court.
The 157 Illegals that set of from India were and have not been held illegally before being taken to Nauru.

Alert moderator
- din:
  
  28 Jan 2015 6:16:02pm
  
  Will the ABC allow posts on that ?
  
  Alert moderator
  - Jilleene:
    
    28 Jan 2015 10:17:22pm
    
    Defeat for the Illegals - wont even make the news on the (our) ABC
    
    Alert moderator
    - MDG:
      
      29 Jan 2015 9:54:40am
      
      What are you on about? I read it on the front page of the ABC website within minutes of the decision being handed down.
      
      Alert moderator
- reaver:
  
  28 Jan 2015 6:51:45pm
  
  It was a predictable outcome, Tropical. Given the Court's previous rulings it was unlikely that the High Court would have ruled that the Australian government had no power to regulate the movement of foreign nationals when they try to enter Australia.
  
  Alert moderator
- Gregory:
  
  28 Jan 2015 10:15:37pm
  
  Even better - costs were awarded against the asylum seekers
  
  Good luck with your invoice JB. Whole idea was to bill us taxpayers wasn't it ?
  
  Alert moderator
  - The Other John:
    
    30 Jan 2015 12:20:49pm
    
    How do you enforce payment of costs onto 157 people who nobody knows and who hold no documentation.
    
    JB is smarter than that. Also, the taxpayer has had to fund the very court processes that make JB so prominant in his field, helping to drive up his commercial rates to fund an exorbitant lifestyle that most Australian taxpayers could only dream about.
    
    Alert moderator
gbe:

28 Jan 2015 3:28:10pm

Its a silly piece really because there is no change of government happening to reverse the present system.

Now ask the same questions three parts through an election campaign after everyone is reminded of the past with graphic footage of boats smashing on the rocks and see what happens.

Alert moderator
Stuffed Olive:

28 Jan 2015 3:29:18pm

I think it is closer to 1 in 5 and not 1 in 4 who voted 'too soft'.

Alert moderator
cathy:

28 Jan 2015 3:50:20pm

The ABC staple diet. Anti Abbott, Anti anyone who supports stopping the boats and Anti anyone who doesn't think the sea is rising and the country is melting. All backed by diligent moderators who happily delete any attempt a criticism.

And the only thing boiling is my blood at the thought of the stupid's here who are happy for the boats to come again.

Alert moderator
- BJ:
  
  28 Jan 2015 4:52:57pm
  
  This attitude is precisely why the slogan plays so well electorally.
  
  Alert moderator
- some kid:
  
  28 Jan 2015 5:09:18pm
  
  I am happy to know that even though you got the policy result you wanted, your blood is still boiling. Maybe you should chill.
  
  Alert moderator
- The Other John:
  
  28 Jan 2015 5:24:56pm
  
  Just don't make any criticism of Sarah Hanson Young or the Greens in general, and you should get at least some of your posts past the moderators.
  
  Alert moderator
- toorightmate:
  
  28 Jan 2015 5:57:30pm
  
  100% agreement.
  
  And, I am NOT a lone wolf.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Gregory:
    
    28 Jan 2015 6:55:25pm
    
    Count me in Cathy,
    
    Where is the article on the PNG Prime Ministers comment yesterday on Manus illegals ? Not on the ABC. That''s for sure
    .
    The ABC is not biased at all. As long as its Left - its published.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Reinhard:
      
      29 Jan 2015 2:43:42pm
      
      Try - "Greens criticise Papua New Guinea's plans to repatriate Manus Island asylum seekers" ABC Liam Cochrane
      
      There's really no need to thank me, simply refrain from shooting off your keyboard in future...
      
      Alert moderator
    - Gregory:
      
      29 Jan 2015 3:45:56pm
      
      And there you have it. Hard to search when the PM of PNG isn't the headline as it should be.
      
      The only way the ABC could frame it - with the Greens opinion as the headline.
      
      The ABC had to wait to publish it.
      
      More bias - so evident.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Jilleene:
      
      29 Jan 2015 3:46:59pm
      
      Why are the Greens and their response the headline ?
      
      Alert moderator
- MDG:
  
  29 Jan 2015 9:58:07am
  
  The interesting thing is that, on these numbers, only about a third of voters are "pro-Abbott" (ie, in agreement with government policy) while the remaining two thirds either don't care or actually DISAGREE with government policy (thinking it either too soft or too harsh).
  
  Alert moderator
mortan:

28 Jan 2015 3:56:55pm

Thank you Peter and Jackie food for thought. The boats are always going to garner strong views here.

I would be interested on how labor views the situation given you believe voters are no longer concerned about boat people coming here.

It would be interesting to see if Labor plans to keep present policy or are they going to return to excepting refugees arriving via people smugglers every day.

Alert moderator
- A Voice in the Wilderness:
  
  28 Jan 2015 5:02:29pm
  
  Could everyone who passes this way please note that the word required here is "accepting", NOT "excepting", and that the past tense would be "have accepted", not "of accepted". Please? Otherwise your comment needs to be interpreted and its impact is diminshed.
  
  Alert moderator
  - cathy:
    
    28 Jan 2015 8:08:30pm
    
    American Spell checker I recon. Not everyone is pedantic about spelling you must get distracted a lot. I except missed words or poor spelling it's the persons thoughts that matter. Not every one can spell and that includes academics.
    
    Alert moderator
- some kid:
  
  28 Jan 2015 5:13:18pm
  
  Hopefully the latter. They're obviously the most motivated to live in Australia.
  
  Alert moderator
  - reaver:
    
    28 Jan 2015 6:54:21pm
    
    That would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, some kid. The voting public have made their demands clear and the Labor party would be wise to listen.
    
    Alert moderator
  - cathy:
    
    28 Jan 2015 8:09:58pm
    
    MMM I don't think making people smugglers wealthy to die at sea is very clever.
    
    Alert moderator
    - some kid:
      
      29 Jan 2015 12:46:12pm
      
      Frankly my dear, I don't give a dam.
      
      Alert moderator
VoR:

28 Jan 2015 3:58:50pm

"Border protection was always a symbolic political issue, a proxy for immigration, terrorism and too much traffic in Western Sydney."

Let's have the real debates. All 3 of them.

Alert moderator
foolking:

28 Jan 2015 4:38:25pm

The threat of people cheating the system and gaining advantage of the inhabitants is wonderful lowest common denominater fodder. It ramps up the fear factor of "foreigners" and is a perfect accompaniment to crime shows , fast food , alcohol, dirt and cleanliness and unreasonable materialistic expectations.

What's got me stuffed is why is it that no one is looking at the long term issue of refugees? Isn't it obvious that this issue is going to grow dramatically and an inhumane approach denigrates all of us ?
We need to start developing self sufficient human sanctuaries that focus on health, education, and minimum environmental impact. Empower refugees so as that when it is safe to go home it is easier. These places can be models of research and development on living efficiently for all of us, we all gain, why is no one looking to a viable future ?

Alert moderator
- alergic:
  
  28 Jan 2015 5:32:53pm
  
  A utopia. Solid policy position. Bound to succeed.
  
  Alert moderator
  - foolking:
    
    29 Jan 2015 10:32:02am
    
    alergic: The kicker is that the refugees remain refugees, safe, all the requirements of a good ,practical, quality of life and much cheaper to run. There is no real incentive to come such a distance unless you genuinely need refuge, get it? We have no responsibility to resettle these people as Australians , only one that is safe haven. Travel out of these human sanctuaries would be by mutual consent you'll return, breaking the rules could eventually mean deportation.
    
    Alert moderator
- earthfan:
  
  29 Jan 2015 4:00:14am
  
  Resettling refugees does nothing to alleviate the world refugee problem, because as fast as one refugee is resettled, his relatives at home give birth to two more. The asylum seekers are coming from countries that are already heavily populated, yet still have higher fertility than we do.
  Resettling refugees is bad for Australia's carbon footprint because, by moving to Australia from a refugee camp, a person doubles his consumption overnight.
  Our humanitarian effort should not be spent rewarding selfish and irresponsible parents by endowing their offspring with a western living standard. The price of a western living standard should be the achievement of a western level of reproductive restraint.
  Instead of lavishing aid on the lucky few, by moving them into Australia, we could be doing more to educate women in undeveloped countries and to provide them with the contraceptive services that they both need and want.
  
  Alert moderator
Regionalgranny:

28 Jan 2015 4:43:29pm

Until an issue directly affects voters, most of the time their interest is either minimal or emotional. This government is well versed in seeking out publicity to cater to the latter. In Western Sydney the issue is most likely still alive and kicking but in regional Queensland most non Australian folk we come across in our daily lives are professionals or other workers on special visas with the occasional refugee family mostly sponsored by church groups. There are of course those who have come from overseas to make a new life for themselves and their families and make a supreme effort to integrate and provide us with the opportunity to learn about their culture. This seems the norm here in the regions.

Alert moderator
- Angela:
  
  28 Jan 2015 7:44:13pm
  
  Thanks. Love your comments as they put a human face to this issue. You are probably the voice the public should be hearing more of.
  
  Alert moderator
Alpo:

28 Jan 2015 5:08:17pm

Now, talking about the treatment of asylum seekers, the Government has made sure, with the latest change in legislation, that it's perfectly fine to behave in contravention to the international convention on refugees that we have signed. So, if anyone wants to treat this government as an international pariah, forget it, just ask: Are you a signatory of the refugees convention? The answer is: Yes! Then ask, do you act in accordance to such convention? The answers is a smile and a No!.... According to the Liberal Government this is a win-win for them.... Dear me!

Alert moderator
- The Other John:
  
  28 Jan 2015 5:23:29pm
  
  By refugees, Alpo, are you referring to people fleeing to a country where they are safe from persecution, or are you talking about those who want to keep in transit to where the welfare is better?
  
  There is a difference between the two, you see.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Alpo:
    
    28 Jan 2015 6:18:58pm
    
    I am referring to those who escape persecution in their home country and ask Australia to grant them refuge under the convention. We assess their claim and accept it or reject it according to the result of such assessment. That's the best way to send a strong message but within the parameters of a humanitarian policy. For those who are oh-so-concerned about saving boat people from drowning, we should approach the Indonesian authorities for the establishment of refugees processing centres in Indonesia funded by Australia and jointly administered by Indonesian, Australian and UNHCR personnel.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Peter of Perth:
      
      28 Jan 2015 7:52:17pm
      
      alpo- And the end target country for resettlement for your idea would be? Obviously Australia. You see, the one argument that you and those of a like mind is that you simply ignore or refuse to see the weakness in your argument is that if the illegal immigrants (yep, they are illegal) bypass many opportunities to make their claim DIRECTLY after they leave their home country, they are no longer seeking asylum and are instead, economic migrants country shopping and when they get to Indonesia, all with the full documentation they must have been in possession of to fly international air, what persecution are they escaping from there? They may not be all that appreciated and the Indonesian government may not make them all that welcome but hey, they are there illegally but they aren't persecuted but if they are, why do they ALWAYS head south to Australia rather than head north, west or east, using the many thousands of dollars they have in their pockets to pay criminals to bring them, to Australia? Could it have anything to do with what's on offer via WELFARE do you think? No? I didn't think you would agree. But keep up your hopeless argument Alpo, if it makes you feel better to fool yourself.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Red:
      
      30 Jan 2015 1:59:24pm
      
      Alpo. An even better fix, and less costly for Australia, would be Indonesia signing the refugee convention. That way any asylum seeker who arrived there and was found to be genuine would have to be settled there. If this was the case, I doubt any there would be any arrivals.
      
      It would certainly sort the cheats out from the genuinely persecuted.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Lucy (original):
    
    29 Jan 2015 1:15:09am
    
    1. Well, here is a possibility for another solution.
    
    Make conditions in Australia so harsh - no unemployment benefits, minimise the minimum wage, a very high co-payment fee for medical attention, no seniors pension until the age of 80, a very high price for tertiary education, cut backs in state education and hospital services, very high taxation (including the GST), poor public transport, petrol and cars only within the reach of the very rich, a highly polluted atmosphere, an impossible climate - that no "economic refugees" will want to come here.
    
    2. On another tack. Stopping the boats is like doing the washing up.
    If I wash the dishes today I still have to wash them tomorrow and the next day and the next day ... The family keeps on eating.
    If you stop the boats in 2014 you still have to stop them in 2015 and in 2016, and in 2017 ...
    The asylum seekers (and economic refugees, if that is what you believe they all are) will keep on coming. The problem will not go away until the "push factors" are dealt with.
    Eventually Manus Island, Nauru, Cambodia will burst.
    The population of the Earth itself is not going to decrease and maintaining the closing of our borders will become more and more costly and more and more difficult.
    
    Alert moderator
    - reaver:
      
      29 Jan 2015 3:49:38pm
      
      If we do not stop the boats, Lucy, then we will still be not stopping them in 2015 and in 2016 and in 2017 and for the foreseeable future. Stopping them by turning them around means that we will not only be dealing with fewer boats (As the post-election fall has shown. There have been fewer boats in the last year than in a week under Gillard.), but we will also not be stuck with the asylum seekers who were on them. We cannot do anything about the "push factors" so we are left with only two options- accept the arrival of the asylum seekers or not accept the arrival of the asylum seekers. Once the costs of welfare payments, increased law enforcement, increased infrastructure and all the other costs of accepting them are taken into account over the long term it is, even with the massive cost of the current system, cheaper to have the current system than to accept the potential arrival of tens of thousands of asylum seekers per year.
      The majority of the problem is going away. The UNHCR puts out regular reports showing the number of asylum claims in the industrialised world. These reports shown that in 2014 Australia experienced a 25% reduction in asylum claims at the same time as the rest of the industrialised world as a whole experienced a 25% increase in asylum claims. They (the asylum seekers) have gone away.
      As for Manus Island, Nauru and Cambodia bursting, in the last year a grand total of 157 asylum seekers have been added and to only one of those places- Nauru. Hardly likely to burst anything in the near future.
      
      Alert moderator
- Zing:
  
  28 Jan 2015 5:27:36pm
  
  The conventions are being obeyed, Alpo.
  
  The boat people came from Indonesia. They weren't being actively persecuted in Indonesia, so they had no lawful right to leave Indonesia and try to claim refuge here. Everyone in these camps should be classified as economic migrants and sent back.
  
  The problem is that poor people are trying to misuse the refugee conventions to obtain a comfortable life in a first world country. They travel across many nations, but refuse to stay at any because they have no job, home or money. They prefer to live in a rich nation with welfare benefits and state housing.
  
  The conventions were never designed to be used this way. The UN may have issues with our approach, but that is to be expected. They want to help the poor immigrate to rich nations. Much like you, the UN humanitarian groups will twist the law to achieve this.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Dr Who:
    
    29 Jan 2015 3:50:06am
    
    Incorrect, Zing.
    
    Most of them had no legal status in Indonesia and arrived unannounced there. Technically, Indonesia could crack down on people smuggling and extradite them. They certainly have no legal rights there, and their security is still tenuous.
    
    Until (or unless) Indonesia issues them with permanent residency visas, they haven't been re-settled, and as such are still legally entitled to our protection if they come here under the UNHCR rules.
    
    That is, presuming the UNHCR recognises them as refugees - that really needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. But if we "turn back the boats," we're not actually examining these claims, and in doing so we're breaching (or potentially breaching) our obligations.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Alpo:
    
    29 Jan 2015 7:40:00am
    
    "The conventions are being obeyed, Alpo.
    The boat people came from Indonesia. They weren't being actively persecuted in Indonesia, so they had no lawful right to leave Indonesia and try to claim refuge here."
    
    No Zing, those coming here are not Indonesians and they have the right to seek asylum here in spite of jumping from their native country (Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Iraq, etc.) to Australia after stopping wherever else in between. That's what the convention allows them to do, please let's respect the convention, or let's get out of it.
    
    Alert moderator
- alergic:
  
  28 Jan 2015 5:41:12pm
  
  Play the "international obligation" card once too often and you will discover how little it means. There is no world government, there are some committees that allow agreement, disagreement and mainly agreement to disagree. Few countries would let UN conventions stop any popular policy.
  
  Alert moderator
Marie:

28 Jan 2015 5:16:20pm

When it comes to votes "It's the economy, stupid"

Alert moderator
AlthredTheUnready:

28 Jan 2015 5:16:53pm

If you kill someone, you go to gaol. If you try to sneak into Australia you go to detention for ever and ever and ever, amen.

If the government doesn't want them here, then fair enough, but we should then simply send them back OR absolutely turn them around at sea. This languishing in detention for ever is our version of Guantanamo Bay.

BUT

In recent months, via the media, it has become obvious that some of the new or 2nd generation arrivals don't like our evil western ways, and would rather sneak off to places like Syria or Iraq and fight for IS, putting them at odds with the ADF, and hence being traitors that are fighting for the other side against our side. Then they will eventually try to sneak back in all fired-up with hatred for us worse than when they left.

Australia is too soft about this sort of stuff. We should be pragmatic and realise that in the current climate of extremism that it's not safe to let anyone in who doesn't have ID, and close that means of entry into Australia completely.

Alert moderator
GrumpiSkeptic:

28 Jan 2015 5:22:04pm

Before I start my post, I want to know what is going on with the moderator(s). Since the departure of Ms. Yvette Blackwood last week, it seems just about every one of my posts sunk without a trace. Is there a more right leaning regime now? Or the bar has been raised so much higher? Or the new moderators simple resort to a dart-board?

Now lets get to business...On the current article...

"...asylum seekers are now devalued political currency for the Coalition and the Abbott Government..."

Yes, I believe that is the case. I also think the LNP has fired all its bullets...two of them namely (a). The Carbon Tax and (2). the refugees issue.

These two issues are intrinsically winners because (a). It gives some money back to the voters, albeit only a small amount to some, and almost negligible to those who are careful with their energy use. (b). The constant barrage of coastguard activities, with TV reporters went hyperactive over them, caused many voters resentments. Mind you, "I am alright Jack" still rings true nowadays.

So after firing those two silver bullets, the LNP found its bullet chamber empty. The rest of the policies, some said ill-conceived, will cause pains to voters. Mind you, voters are contemplating a good inning from Team Abbott. Sure, they knew things will get a bit squeezy as the message blasted out daily by Joe Hockey and Co that Blackholes are a current and present danger. Voters did believe the mantra used frequently by the conservatives that they are the best mob to deal with things financial.

Yes, "We built up the coffer, and the ALP" squandered it." is often chanted. John Howard was often used as a shinny example to illustrate what a golden era we lucky Australians had enjoyed. Sure, when the Chinese took every shovelful of iron ore, and every spadeful of coal, and paid a good price for them too.

The belt tightening measures didn't please most voters because now not only they either lost their jobs, or in danger of losing them, they also have all those background noises buzzing them all day and all night. The Medical Co-payments, the education reforms, penalty rates, potentially GST, etc. The strange thing is that these issues are now becoming the ever so annoying matter such as the refugees arrivals.

The regular rejection by the senate is taking away the government's ability to get a clear home run. I believe it also is beginning to sap its confidence. All pains and no gain?

Alas, adding to the pains, now we have a knighthood drama that really sucked the wind out of the LNP's sails. Sure, it was Abbott's one-man act. So who should get all the blames?

Abbott got the gig as a result of some clever slogans. He probably thought being able to hand out a knighthood himself is merely a just reward for a leader. Well, bad call there...

Alert moderator
- AlthredTheUnready:
  
  28 Jan 2015 6:02:30pm
  
  We already have two great Australian icons with titles, Sir Les and Dame Edna. Given what's been in the press about the royals and what they get up to with their rich friends, I'm guessing that maybe Tony had to do this for financial reasons. Maybe the Winsor's are going to help Australia out with a few of our bills? God knows they owe us for Barclay's part in the GFC.
  
  Alert moderator
- Brown:
  
  28 Jan 2015 6:20:06pm
  
  The majority of Australians are not as credulous as they used to be, so they believe the current stance on asylum-seekers arriving by boat is the right approach. It was no real surprise to them when PNG Prime Minister Peter O'Neill recently announced that most of the detainees on Manus are not genuine political refugees.
  
  It wasn't long ago and the majority of Australians naively believed, and were told by advocates, that most people arriving by boat had been tortured and were fleeing persecution.
  
  The reality is that many have borrowed money in their home countries to have a crack at what was once an easy, though lengthy, process to dupe to get that visa. Now the jigs up and their desperation is due to the difficulty they will face repaying their debts upon their return; debts that ha expected to repay via the Australian welfare system.
  
  Alert moderator
custard:

28 Jan 2015 6:52:01pm

Only a leftist company like Essential could come up with some distorted polling suggesting illegal boats are not a concern to Australian voters.

Believe that at your own electoral peril.

Alert moderator
- Lucy (original):
  
  29 Jan 2015 1:45:48am
  
  Custard, if Morrison has really solved to boat problem it becomes a non-issue. Why should Australian voters be concerned about it?
  
  How can it be an issue at the 2016 election?
  
  Tony Abbott (or his replacement) in 2016 can hardly say, "We will promise to stop the boats" if the answer is "What boats? You already stopped them in 2014."
  
  The very enunciation of such a promise in 2016 would be an admission by the LNP that they had not "stopped the boats".
  
  In any case, the Manus Island deal, with the "Never, never to be allowed into Australia" was Rudd's brainwave.
  
  The Australian voters have already taken what Morrison has claimed on board. Silence on operational and on-water matters has moved concerns about 'illegal' boats off the radar for the average Australian.
  
  Still, Abbott might be foolish enough to try.
  After all he has just given the highest award in the Order of Australia to the Duke of Edinburgh who had already been given the highest award back in 1988 by Bob Hawke.
  In 1988, at the time of the bicentenary, Bob Hawke, a Labor prime minister, presided over the appointment of Prince Philip as a Companion in the Military Division of the Order of Australia for "service to the Australian Defence Force as Admiral of the Fleet in the Royal Australian Navy, Field Marshal in the Australian Army and Marshal in the Royal Australian Air Force". Since Abbott has updated the name of the Duke's award, why not update the Award name for all the other 1980s early recipients?
  
  Alert moderator
  - Grey:
    
    29 Jan 2015 10:02:23am
    
    Lucy, not everyone has as good a memory as you may for whilst there has been a very effective reduction in people smuggling for now, it does not take too much thought to know that people smugglers will again up their efforts with a Labor government they will view as being weak and without the intestinal fortitude to take a strong stand.
    That is why the return of people smuggling being an eklection issue any time is very relevant.
    
    Alert moderator
- foolking:
  
  29 Jan 2015 10:52:12am
  
  custard: it was Morisson's decision to call it operational matters therefore no media, he kind of shot the government in the foot.
  
  Alert moderator
mike2:

28 Jan 2015 7:02:00pm

Yes it has dropped down on our list of worries because they fixed the mess labor left so now we don't have to worry

Alert moderator
Peter of Perth:

28 Jan 2015 7:18:04pm

Personally I, and I'm sure many other taxpaying Australians are extremely happy that this government, unlike the Labor/Greens disaster, who stared the flood, is using enthusiasm and commitment to deter the flow of illegal economic country shopping queue jumpers and it's great to see the highest court in the country agree that these people, and their lawyer's BS stories were not acceptable. The hypocrisy of the handwringing do gooders is astonishing when they are more than happy to support these bludgers while studiously ignoring the genuine refugees waiting patiently in refugee camps around the world.
I couldn't care less that this lot have had their paid up tickets to welfare for life torn up and I hope the word finds it's way back quickly to those who were no doubt waiting for this case to be accepted so they could hop onto their boats and try it on as well. The question that is NEVER answered by those poor delusional people who simply can't see the truth of this giant scam is, 'just how many of these ILLEGAL ECONOMIC IMMIGRANTS can this country absorb do you think before we are sinking under the cost and the trouble we will invite onto ourselves and this country? If, as some say, these people have so much to offer this country, why do they pay many thousands of dollars to criminals to bring them to Australia's back door, after having 'lost' their passports etc of course, rather than simply apply to emigrate and offer their qualities and qualifications through to correct, and legal, channels?

Alert moderator
- Grumpy:
  
  29 Jan 2015 11:52:57am
  
  And there is the compassionate voice of the right.
  
  Alert moderator
hybridfiat:

28 Jan 2015 9:35:53pm

Most commentators on the ABC and from Labor said that the flood of refugees in boats did not come because Labor dropped the barriers but because of 'push' factors. So surely since there is no big fleet of boats trying now is because the 'push' factors have stopped. Makes sense if Labor and the ABC were correct back then.

Alert moderator
hybridfiat:

28 Jan 2015 9:44:07pm

Labor put hundreds of kids into detention and now the Libs are emptying the centres and closing them we hear complaints.
Theres no pleasing some folk.

Alert moderator
Steve:

28 Jan 2015 11:37:11pm

Tony Abbott implements semi-solutions that are expensive, temporary, and may not work in the long term.
Keeping people in offshore detention centres is cruel and expensive, much better solution would be to
withdraw from the refugee convention and deport these people to the country of origin or to a transit country as soon as they arrive to Australia.
He wants to balance the budget but won't propose referendum on balanced budget amendment to the constitution.
"Direct Actions" are expensive and won't work, much better solution would be to do nothing on the climate change until we
see a real reduction in emissions by China. Royal Commission into unions is expensive and it won't achieve anything, much better
solution would to to pass a law that requires all political parties to conduct pre-selection only through US-style primaries.

Alert moderator
neil:

29 Jan 2015 12:20:36am

I find it astonishing that the ABC would portray Essential Media polls as if they are representative of public opinion.

We all accept that the ABC has an unrepresentative left bias, But the amateurish structure of Essential Medias polls encourages an extreme left bias.

Essential Media polls are generated in social media, and social media only represents about 10% of the electorate, and let's be real, social media is driven by socialist leaning uni students that have never worked a day in their lives and never wish too. They will take 7 or 8 years to complete their worthless arts degree then try to get a job in the public service, union movement or most likely somewhere where they will ask "do you want fries with that".

Alert moderator
- clete:
  
  29 Jan 2015 8:45:23am
  
  Couldn't agree more, Neil.
  Surprised your comment got past the new moderator, actually.
  I've been trying to post similar sentiments, but have been blocked repeatedly. Meanwhile, the most venomous and hateful (and mostly irrelevant) left wing posts are seemingly successful. Go figure!
  It's time for the ABC to accept that these Essential Media "stories" are so distorted and unrepresentative, that they're not taken seriously anymore - a bit like Jonathan Green articles.
  
  Alert moderator
- MDG:
  
  29 Jan 2015 9:46:30am
  
  Essential polls are conducted online, but not through social media. There is a difference. I assume they would also use all the normal pollster methods to avoid having a sample grossly skewed towards one particular demographic. And even if you were right, how do you account for the fact that the voting intentions figures Essential generates are in line with all the other polls? Essential, in fact, is showing support for the Coalition to be rather higher at the moment than either Morgan or Newspoll, which hardly squares with your theory of a rabidly left-wing respondent cohort.
  
  Alert moderator
Christine:

29 Jan 2015 7:46:35am

Asylum seekers can't just all come on shore because if you let them that is exactly what they will do. I don't see any easy solutions. The Pacific solution was perhaps the only solution. Sorry to say this but life is not all wine and roses.

Alert moderator
mick:

29 Jan 2015 8:17:44am

no illegal people to come to Australia at all they need to go back from were they come as soon as they land

Alert moderator
gabrianga:

29 Jan 2015 9:02:06am

"But now, compared with Uni and doctor fees, concerns about asylum seekers are well down the list of voter concerns."

Could this be because the Abbott Government has stopped the arrival of people trying to enter Australia through the back door?

Alert moderator
- MDG:
  
  29 Jan 2015 9:47:53am
  
  Yep. Talk about being a victim of your own success! It's ironic that parties reap bigger political benefits from pointing out a problem than they get from solving it.
  
  Alert moderator
- foolking:
  
  29 Jan 2015 10:56:00am
  
  gabrienga: More likely because the media isn't allowed to report most incidents, so the public scare campaign has diminished impact.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Cherna:
    
    29 Jan 2015 3:07:49pm
    
    Name one entry of an asylum seeker onto Australian shores or for that matter so much as one death at sea... or is it all a conspiracy to hide such numbers, @foolking?
    
    Alert moderator
  - reaver:
    
    29 Jan 2015 7:43:25pm
    
    The media is very much allowed to report, foolking. How do you think the government could try to stop them? There is a great difference between the government stopping media reporting on something and the government not telling the media about it, but the media being free to report whatever information they can get elsewhere.
    
    Alert moderator
maelcolium:

29 Jan 2015 10:30:20am

This "win" for the LNP stopping the boats falls a bit flat with me because we only have the Government's word that they have been "stopped". It is not an information free zone so we have no reliable measure on the truth of the statement. The information from the Indonesian end has always been flaky, so it's all a bit of a mystery.

That the Government is so on the nose surprises no one who hasn't been on Mars for the past eighteen months. Their problems are so insurmountable that not many are thinking about asylum seekers which is why the statistics are a bit strange given the human rights violations that occur daily. And of course, we used to think that tough treatment on asylum seekers also meant fair treatment, but again we have no reliable evidence one way or the other.

Any attempt to correlate the public view on the Government's performance with performance on "stopping the boats" is overwhelmed by the sheer weight of negative numbers from the performance side of the equation, so the comparison will be skewed under present circumstances. An entertaining read, but pretty much something we already know or don't know as the case may be.

Alert moderator
- RacerX:
  
  30 Jan 2015 12:48:23pm
  
  I get it, whatever the ALP government tell us must have been the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And if the Liberals tell us nothing because no one has arrived then they must be hiding something ... I guess you believed the ALP when they said the boats can't be stopped.
  
  You know maybe we are at war with Indonesia like Rudd predicted, perhaps the government is hiding that from us?
  
  Alert moderator
Grumpy:

29 Jan 2015 11:45:13am

Stopped the boats
Scrapped the tax

Mission accomplished...

Good work fellas and gal.....Now for the rest of Australia's problems....

There are other problems? No one told us!

Two policies and nothing else. Australia voted for someone who wasn't Rudd or Gillard,,,problem is he is actually no one.

Alert moderator
- Cherna:
  
  29 Jan 2015 3:05:06pm
  
  You might be right @Grumpy but even accepting your numbers that's 2 to the Coalition against 0 to 6years of Labor.
  
  I've yet to hear of noe Labor achievement over a 6 year tenure that did good for the Nation that didn't end up costing us more debt, or cause harm to humans, and was fully costed ...
  
  But then what about the Coalition restoring our relationship with Indonesia after the Labor spy scandal...
  
  Trade agreements don't count in your list of achievements (China, South Korea, Japan).
  
  Fixing the NDIS disaster doesn't count either from your point of view...
  
  No more deaths at sea surely would count would it not?
  
  You name one tax fix - there were 2 fixes by the adults - the mining tax disaster and the carbon tax folly, both fixed...
  
  etc etc etc...
  
  Only 2 you say, guess all the other stuff slipped right past you?
  
  The mess left by the children is being cleaned up by the adults...
  
  Alert moderator
David Hill:

29 Jan 2015 1:31:50pm

If the boats have really stopped there is no more need to be patrolling the oceans north of Australia as there are no boats coming to stop .

Alert moderator
Judy Bee:

29 Jan 2015 3:56:05pm

There is so much secrecy under the cloak of 'operational matters' we do not really know how much cruelty is imposed in order to "Stop the Boats" . "Stop the Boats" only works because we as a nation are prepared to look the other way.

Alert moderator
Sandra S:

29 Jan 2015 10:32:40pm

"...asylum seekers are now devalued political currency..."

True. The problem has been solved, therefore it is not an issue any more.

However, come the election day, when the voters are, once again, reminded of the Labor/Green open border disaster, it will once again become a huge issue. Particularly since Labor leadership have still not acknowledged or accepted the current successful policies.

Alert moderator
Page:

29 Jan 2015 11:26:01pm

Could all the 'non-believers please look beyond their comfort zones at what's happening in Europe and the Middle East? John Howard's position that 'we will choose who comes here' resonates more strongly every day.

Alert moderator
sam:

30 Jan 2015 10:24:19am

The whole premise of this aricle is that governments should only make policy decisions when there is some 'political dividend' or win in a popularity contest. This is the sort of inane ALP/Green thinking which was sending the country down the gurgler fast. Do a survey with different questions, focusing on the restoration of integrity to our immigration and welfare systems, and I guarantee you a 95% vote in support of the government.

Alert moderator
Smiley:

30 Jan 2015 3:12:48pm

I would have thought that genuine peolpe fleeing persecution and hardship would love to have a roof over their head and to be fed, regardless of which detention centre they were in.

Alert moderator

Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.

Boats and votes don't go hand-in-hand

Comments (200)

harvey:

Gary:

Peter of Perth:

patarus:

Shocked Again:

John Coochey:

Pete:

bkeniry:

Troy T:

D.G.:

Tom1:

John Coochey:

Tom1:

reaver:

The Concerned Citizen:

the yank:

Zing:

dog tags:

Tom1:

Peter of Perth:

the yank:

Cyn:

Petyer of Perth:

EVAN:

Sydney Bob:

gbe:

prison:

Tom1:

Dave:

EVAN:

Kanooka:

Dace76:

Tom1:

mike:

Dove:

tez:

Mathew:

reaver:

Mathew:

reaver:

IMBY:

Lucy (original):

IMBY:

mack:

Eeyore:

The Concerned Citizen:

reaver:

Peter of Melbourne:

Zing:

ThatFlemingGent:

Gary:

RacerX:

Monty B:

the yank:

mortan:

the yank:

Rex Smith:

PEarn:

Trev:

Gilbert:

Monty B:

virgil:

EVAN:

hairy nosed wombat:

IMBY:

Alpo:

some kid:

A pocketful of wry:

fredn:

A pocketful of wry:

Marko:

whohasthefish:

Stuffed Olive:

Dave:

anote:

sidlaw:

Dave:

Bob42: