What does the Australian public think about asylum issues?
Professor Andrew Markus
by Professor Andrew Markus
We live in a culture in which the media frequently and prominently uses opinion polls, with findings presented as factual and unambiguous. In reality, interpretation is beset with difficulty, as illustrated by recent surveys on asylum.
The June parliamentary debate, following record boat arrivals and loss of life at sea, led to surveys conducted for the major dailies. Reporting a Nielsen poll on 2 July, The Age headlined “Most blame government for boat people deadlock”. Almost a week later, Newspoll for the Australian produced a different result: “All sides damned”.
The failure to consider inconsistent findings, or to explain the trend of opinion, is typical of media discussion of polling on issues other than the standing of political parties and their leaders, which are tracked almost weekly from one election to the next.
Yet consideration of the record of polling on an issue such as asylum provides an important insight into public opinion, an insight that informs political strategy in Canberra but rarely find its way into the media, despite the almost blanket coverage of boat arrivals and public debate.
Surveys provide four major findings on public attitudes on asylum.
First, there is a large measure of confusion. As many as one in five respondents report uncertainty in a number of surveys. In such a context, minor change in the wording of questions can produce significant change in responses.
Second, while one part of the population is uncertain or confused, a larger segment holds strong and entrenched views. Scanlon Foundation surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011 asked for views on the best policy for dealing with asylum seekers and presented four options. In 2011, 35 per cent favoured turning back boats or detention of arrivals and deportation, while only 22 per cent favoured eligibility for permanent settlement. This pattern of response is similar to that obtained in 2010.
A United Nations Refugee Agency survey conducted in Australia in April-May asked with regard to boat arrivals “whether the way they arrive makes you more or less sympathetic towards them”. Thirty-two per cent responded “much less sympathetic”, only 8 per cent “much more sympathetic”.
In July Essential Research asked “Do you think the Federal Labor Government is too tough or too soft on asylum seekers or is it taking the right approach?” Twelve per cent answered “too tough”, 11 per cent “right approach”, while 60 per cent indicated “too soft”.
The consistent element in these results is that those who hold strong negative views outnumber the strong positive, probably by at least two to one.
Third, and consistent with this assessment, when asked “Which party is best to handle the asylum issue?” the largest proportion prefer the Coalition.
In July 2012 Newspoll found 37 per cent in agreement that the Coalition would “best handle” asylum seekers, 17 per cent Labor and 7 per cent Greens.
Essential Research in June 2012 asked “which party would you trust most to handle” fifteen specified issues. For “treatment of asylum seekers” it obtained 16 per cent for Labor and 36 per cent for Liberal, almost the same proportions as Newspoll, and a higher 13 per cent for the Greens.
Fourth, there is evidence of growing disenchantment with all sides of politics.
On a number of occasions Newspoll has asked for views on the party best to “handle asylum seekers arriving in Australia”. The two most recent polls, in February and July, found support for the Coalition’s approach down from 47 to 37 per cent, Labor down from a very low 21 to 17 per cent.
In late June Nielsen asked: “Do you support or oppose the major parties working together to find a compromise policy on asylum seekers”. Eighty-eight per cent responded “yes”, with support high across party alignment.
In the first week of July Essential Research asked if “politicians are genuinely concerned about the welfare of asylum seekers or are they just playing politics …?” Only 11 per cent considered the politicians “genuinely concerned”, a very high 78 per cent that they were “just playing politics”. There was little difference by party alignment, with 16 per cent Labor supporters answering “genuinely concerned”, 13 per cent Coalition and 7 per cent Greens.
Prior to the formulation of the so-called Malaysian solution, Labor was vulnerable to the charge that it had no policy. Even though processing in Malaysia was ruled illegal by the High Court, there is a perception that parliament has the power to end the impasse. Now when the Opposition accuses the Government of failure on asylum, Labor’s immediate response is to blame the Opposition for blocking legislation.
This approach may have partly undermined the legitimacy of the Coalition on asylum. But the strategy, rather than increasing the popularity of Labor, seems to have further fuelled negative assessment of all politicians.
Andrew Markus is the Pratt Foundation research professor in the School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies in the Faculty of Arts at Monash University.