UK United Kingdom

What does the Australian public really think about asylum seekers?

The Australian public trusts the Coalition more than the government on asylum seekers. AAP/Rebecca Le May

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 considering 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 finds its way into the media, despite the almost blanket coverage of boat arrivals and public debate.

So what do the polls say?

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% favoured turning back boats or detention of arrivals and deportation, while only 22% 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”; 32% responded “much less sympathetic”, only 8% responded “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?” 12% answered “too tough”, 11% chose “right approach”, while 60% indicated “too soft”.

The consistent element in these results is that those who hold strong negative views on asylum seekers 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% in agreement that the Coalition would “best handle” asylum seekers, 17% Labor and 7% Greens.

Essential Research in June 2012 asked “which party would you trust most to handle” 15 specified issues. For “treatment of asylum seekers” it obtained 36% for Liberal and 16% for Labor, almost the same proportions as Newspoll, and a higher 13% for the Greens.

Fourth, there is evidence of growing disenchantment with all sides of politics.

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% considered the politicians “genuinely concerned”, a very high 78% that they were “just playing politics”. There was little difference by party alignment, with 16% Labor supporters answering “genuinely concerned”, 13% Coalition and 7% Greens.

Prior to the formulation of the so-called Malaysia 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 that strategy, rather than increasing the popularity of Labor, seems to have further fuelled negative assessment of all politicians.

Read the rest of The Conversation’s asylum seeker coverage:

Asylum seekers and Australia: the evidence

The Conversation panel on asylum seekers: meet the experts

Infographic: global refugee populations 1975-2010

Refugee intake starts in the region: making a difference in regional burden sharing

Refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia: the good, the bad and the unexpected

Resettling refugees: the evidence supports increasing our intake

What role does Australia play in accepting the world’s refugees?

Who are Australia’s ‘boat people’, and why don’t they get on planes?

Uncomfortable truths: busting the top three asylum seeker myths

There’s no evidence that asylum seeker deterrence policy works

There’s more to regional collaboration than the Malaysia Arrangement

How immigration policy harms asylum seekers' mental health

Asylum seekers in Indonesia: why do they get on boats?

Preventing deaths at sea: asking the experts on asylum seekers

Join the conversation

13 Comments sorted by

  1. Marilyn Shepherd


    But who cares what the ignorant thousand or so say on opinion polling? The MSM should be ashamed of themselves for asking questions about them in the first place as they are not an issue, they are human beings with the exact same legal rights and human rights as we have.

    Encouraging racist bogans is just ridiculous.

  2. Lester Jiminez


    This is really sad. Not only Labor failed to present the issue in possitive light, I think the Greens and certainly the Coalitions are culpable for the fear and divisiveness in the populace as well.

    I agree that we can and should take in many more refugees but this will only solve half of the problem we are facing with boat arrivals. First of all the number of refugees waiting is very large. Secondly, people movement is very complicated and it does not involve only extremely desperate people…

    Read more
    1. Marilyn Shepherd


      In reply to Lester Jiminez

      We already assess resettlement claims in 36 embassies, but only so we can avoid accepting anyone.

  3. Philip Dowling

    IT teacher

    So surveys prove what they set out to find. Quelle surprise.

  4. Peter Ormonde
    Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.



    One of the underlying issues of confounding poll results is the methodology employed.

    Take for example Essential's approach.

    Essential staff get together and decide the questions of importance - to them from the press. These questions are then e-mailed out to some 7,000 members of a market research pool totalling 120,000 or so. Those interested send in a completed survey. The respondents receive some sort of reward points for their participation from the market research company…

    Read more
  5. Sean Lamb

    Science Denier

    I would like to take this opportunity to salute the Department of Immigration for the successful forcible repatriation of 14 asylum seekers deemed not to meet the criteria since 2008.

    Clearly the system is working and Australia is singularly blessed with an exceptionally honest people smugglers who very carefully weed out the undeserving on our behalf.

    1. Sean Lamb

      Science Denier

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      My bandwidth is limited, you had better give me a precis.

      But in these kind of situations journalists tend to confirm their existing predictions. I wish these bleeding hearts would travel to Syria and denounce all those who think it is clever to foment civil wars in countries.

      Yes I know Hezbollah is irritating and yes I know the tail wags both the political and journalistic dog, but I saw the bodies are some young Syrian soldiers killed near the Turkish border - where guerrillas are allowed…

      Read more
    2. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.


      In reply to Sean Lamb

      Less fable more fact Sean before you go off saluting things.

      The report essentially follows the fates of a dozen or so "repatriated" asylum seekers and their families. It does not make pretty listening - children killed, assassinations, disappearances... perhaps for no other reason that they tried to flee, or in most cases because their fears were well justified.

      This is why bureaucrats are faceless, Sean.

    3. Sean Lamb

      Science Denier

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      So exactly how many children have we forcibly repatriated back to Afghanistan and how many ended up being killed?

      What you present are not facts but one long narcissistic liberal wail. Meanwhile very real people are being killed in Syria and our academics and journalists are sitting on the sidelines cheering the whole process on.

      Words can not express the depths of my contempt for such double-standards.

    4. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.


      In reply to Sean Lamb

      I appreciate your concern for Syria. Must admit I haven't noticed anyone cheering.

      Sean squander a slab of your bandwidth on that short radio piece - won't eat much - before you go dismissing it as a "narcissistic liberal wail". I am not going to give you a precis. These are people's lives and deaths. They deserve a bit more than a precis.

      Or just stick to the fables Sean.

      Incidentally here's an interesting piece from today's Guardian on the role of Iraqis affiliated with Al Qaida making IEDs and car bombs in eastern Syria.

    5. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      This interview makes a lot of assertions as tovarious motivations. How many of the people who were returned originally fled to escape retribution for murdering someone? Simply being shot at is not a reason to grant asylum. using this criteria residents in many suburbs would qualify as refugees, as the level of drive by shootings increase.
      I am quite confident that we have refugees in Australia from Yugoslavia who committed war crimes during the civil war.

  6. Margaret Rose STRINGER

    retired but interested

    "In July 2012 Newspoll found 37% in agreement that the Coalition would “best handle” asylum seekers, 17% Labor and 7% Greens."
    That's one explanation for opinion polls' being meaningless: the other 39% - the undecided.
    There's another reason, that raises hackles and is never referred to; and that's just who gets polled. I'd give quids to have precise figures on the intellectual levels across the great Divide of those to whom the questions are put.