Newspoll: 57-43 to Labor in Victoria

The Australian has opted to deliver the bi-monthly Victorian state Newspoll result for November-December before the holiday period rather than after. It finds Labor’s two-party lead unchanged on 57-43, despite their primary vote dropping two points to 41 per cent while the Coalition remains steady on 35 per cent. The Australian report says the Greens are “steady” on 14 per cent, although this is in fact down a point on last time. John Brumby’s approval rating is up two points to 51 per cent, and his lead has preferred premier has increased from 52-27 to 54-26.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

138 comments on “Newspoll: 57-43 to Labor in Victoria”

  1. Barking @98,

    Classic Greens bluster. No where is there any evidence that the Greens have actually done anything. Rhetoric as a substitute for action is what the Greens are all about.

  2. GG,
    “Its about time that the ALP stopped looking for scape goats around their failures. Every time the ALP is faced with a issue, they immedieately create a “Board”, “Review” or in the case of Global Warming a new tax that won’t work but will give Billions to the Polluters. Its a sign that the ALP know they have a credibility issue on Glbal Warming that they have decided to attack the Greens. Everyone know that the Greens are the only party to have an integrated approach to Global Warming. When people say, ‘what have the Greens done?, I say, “We are out there telling the ALP that rather than spending a generations resources on new schools and other infrastructure, they could have spent a generations resources on ‘sustainable’ infrastructure. What a lost opportuntiy. I’m on the board of my grandchilds primary school. When we had a new school building approved, I suggested that as a school community we build a 9-10 star environmentally sustainable school. When the government bureaucrats turned up, they had no idea what we were talking about. Its was so absurd that when I asked them which part of the building faced North, they replied, “Oh any part you like.” They missed a fantastic opportunity to have a generation of energy saving, cheap to run, infrastructure.” This is what the ALP is doing, missing opportunities to make a difference, all talk and no joined up thinking.”

  3. Barking,

    Just a query. In Victoria, the governing bodies for State run schools are called School Councils. I have heard of Boards in the context of Private Schools. However, Private Schools are businesses that generally make their own investment decisions on facilities independant of the Government.

    Perhaps you can clarify your position and the status of the School.

  4. GG,
    Quite right, my apologies its a government private school.
    Oh and just a reminder, you started this bit of correspondance with the article from the AGE quoting Lenders and co.
    Let there be no doublt here, the ALP are going to flog the COALition in next years election and I commend them for spending, federally, 43 Bill. well done, great work really well targetted and it so pissed off Howard and Costello. The point is that the ALP show in this regard and their developer sponsored building regs, is that they just don’t have a long term approach.

  5. I think Baileu is onto something big….banning the bong, it could be the number one election issue this year…to ban or not to ban…the debates would draw huge crowds as people discussed the delivery methods of marijuana, whether the bong or the joint was better, or spotting hash as popular in NewZealand. Forget about the economy, jobs, education, transport, CC….this is the number one issue. This could make it 52/48 and make up the rest in the lead up to the election.
    Ted I liked you personally, but please get out of politics…you so don’t belong there…you really don’t have a clue..at all, at all, at all, at all.
    Have you heard of sheesha by the way? you know the legal tobaco herbal stuff smoked in a bong all the rage in nightclubs/bars now?

  6. Front page of the AGE.
    http://www.theage.com.au/national/rethink-on-outer-urban-expansion-20100104-lq5o.html
    “Mr Madden’s comments are likely to anger developers and landholders, particularly to the city’s west and north, who have lobbied hard for the boundary extension.”
    Now GG I could go on an anti ALP rant here, but I won’t. Lets look at the politics of this, the ALP are clearly putting this off until after the next election. They are now in agreement with you, they are likely to get the control of the upper house.
    If they do get control of the upper house, it will be the start of the decline of the Vic government, but then who cares, they will have been in for 14 years, and will still likely win the 1014 election.

  7. What? Charging developers a tax to cover the infrastructure required by new developments is ‘the start of the decline of the Vic government’?

    The proposals under the Bill are: if land is rezoned for development (and rezoning is a long and intensive process) and thus improves in value, sometimes by over a hundred per cent, the government will tax the improved valuation.

    In other words, the government will take a cut of the windfall gain to the developer.

    This money will be used for schools, hospitals, public transport, roads, etc., which will be of benefit for everyone.

    And the Greens plan to vote against the Bill.

    Something against taking money from the rich to direct towards projects which are for the good of all?

    Nice to see the Greens siding with the developers on this one.

  8. The Greens are for the proposals you have listed, Zoomster. But they are against the Urban Expansion.

    If the ALP decoupled these two bills, the government would get the money from developers.

    Lets see how much the ALP want that money. Because it looks like it has only been proposed to make the Greens look bad, since its obvious the Greens will block the rezoning.

  9. Ha you call these issues. people there is something bigger than all of this it is the bong, and do we ban or not? that’s what i’ll be voting on

  10. I know that its silly season for the media and they will print anything, but if I was Balleau and some work experience media advisor came up with the idea of running a story about banning the bong, you would have to start throwing things about the room , surely what chance does he have.
    I again assert that the big end of town is doing so well out of Brumby that they are suggesting to the coalition, look boys there will be directorships for everyone when you’ve finished your time of humiliation, just don’t rock the boat and don’t try and upset the apple cart.
    The Coalition should be investigated for not making the slightest effort to make inroads into the governments standing.
    What do these people think when they see polls heading them to oblivion, Maybe thats why they came up wiht the ban the bong, they were probably on the end of one.

  11. Maybe it was ban the bomb and Baileau read it wrong….the whole office went D’oh!!!! It was just a typo, he was meant to go anti-nuclear….maybe not

  12. Dave

    if the land needs to be rezoned for the surcharge to apply, then the bill only applies to land which is currently not zoned residential.

    Thus there is no point decoupling the bill. There is very little land within the present urban confines which could be rezoned in this way and what there is also no lack of supporting infrastructure.

    If you are not rezoning land which is presently not residential and not within the urban boundaries, there is no need for the bill fullstop.

  13. I love the way Tim Holding works the media. They really are dumb f’s.
    The State government know that when they drop the level of water restrictions before the next election there will be some backlash, (not much) in the Bush. ‘
    So what does Holding do , he picks up the phone, calls the CEO of some Rural water Board and says, Hoi big ears, lower your water restirction now!. A couple of months later the pipeline issue hits the fan, someone comes out and attacks re the water being lost to water Melbournes lawns, Holding then turns around and says, ” Oh come on, its not about us and them, the people of Swan Hill are on stage one, so who can possibly argue that the Millions in Melb shouldn’t be also.”

    The man is a genius, Now why doesn’t Bolt jump on this. ?

  14. [Now why doesn’t Bolt jump on this. ]

    Because Bolt knows his readers, and what you have explained is a difficult concept/ scenario for his readers to follow.

  15. Barking

    given that the information water restrictions are based on is freely available to anyone who can be bothered to look, this scenario doesn’t hold water.

    Water restrictions follow a set formula – there is X amount of water in Y storage/s, therefore Town B is on C restrictions.

    How much water is available in the storages is well publicised (normally part of the weather news for each TV station).

    So if the restrictions weren’t appropriate to the amount of water in the system, then questions would be asked (probably not by the Opposition, who aren’t the brightest sparks in the pack).

    Secondly, water systems are separate. Town B can be on Stage One, quite legitimately, while Town D a few k down the road is on Stage Four, depending on where their water is sourced.

    In fact, that scenario is quite common in this area. One town receives its water from the outflow of a hydro station – the hotter the weather, the more power is generated, the more water flows down the stream, so they have a very reliable water supply.

    Another receives theirs from a mountain stream, with no storage at all. If the stream dries up, they’re out of water.

    So two towns, less than 20 minutes apart by road, can be on totally different restrictions.

  16. z

    Mrs D was telling me that Melbourne doesn’t really need the Murray to Melb pipeline now, which was an interim measure, as you have enough reservoir water for Melb until the desal comes on line. Is that true?

  17. No, it’s a media beat up.

    According to the beat up, the pipe was only built to keep Melb in water until the desal plant came on line.

    If that were true, the State would have spent a ridiculous amount of money on a short term project.

    The pipeline is there as an alternative water supply. As I have explained before, the State government here realised a few years ago that having one source of water for any community, no matter how secure that water supply seemed, was a recipe for disaster.

    So there’s now a deliberate policy of ensuring that as many communities as possible have more than one source of water.

  18. Water recycling is (a) expensive and (b) unpopular.

    Politicians might go for (b) if (a) wasn’t so, or (a) if (b) wasn’t. They’re not going to do both together.

    An aquifer would still require an extensive pipeline to get it to Melbourne, which would be even more expensive and cause just as much outcry.

    Recycling also involves other issues, which are rarely considered. For water to be recycled, it needs to be collected. This would require another system of pipes at a household by household level, effectively replumbing the Melbourne area. The water collected would need to be stored for treatment, involving another level of complexity.

  19. Zoomster
    water recycling is far cheaper than desal.

    “An aquifer would still require an extensive pipeline to get it to Melbourne, which would be even more expensive and cause just as much outcry.”

    Did you look at where the aquifers are? The infrastucture probably already exists. And pumping water form an aquifer is as cheap as pumping it from a dam.

    “For water to be recycled, it needs to be collected. ”
    yes, it is currently collected at sewage plants…

    It is less complicated and cheaper than desal. The reason it is unpopular is simply due to ignorance.

    I must say this whole paragraph sounds like you are just shooting from the hip.
    “Recycling also involves other issues, which are rarely considered. For water to be recycled, it needs to be collected. This would require another system of pipes at a household by household level, effectively replumbing the Melbourne area. The water collected would need to be stored for treatment, involving another level of complexity.”

    It’s all wrong. The sewerage system already exists.

    Why are you pretending to know anything about this?

  20. As I often say, Astro, people confuse ‘explaining’ with ‘supporting’.

    I’m all for recycling.

    I’m just explaining why the government won’t do it.

  21. [The pipeline is there as an alternative water supply. As I have explained before, the State government here realised a few years ago that having one source of water for any community, no matter how secure that water supply seemed, was a recipe for disaster.]

    Would the desal plant have its own power source or would it go down in a blackout/bushfire etc? I suppose the desal could always malfunction and blow up for a while.

  22. Diog

    probably would go down. Most water systems rely on power of some kind to pump the water.

    I’m not talking about a back up in case of a few days lack of water, but for a majorish event – such as we nearly experienced in 2006, when one of Melbourne’s catchments was threatened by fire.

    Desal also has the advantage of not being rain reliant, which almost every other option is.

  23. Zoomster said

    “Barking

    given that the information water restrictions are based on is freely available to anyone who can be bothered to look, this scenario doesn’t hold water.

    Water restrictions follow a set formula – there is X amount of water in Y storage/s, therefore Town B is on C restrictions.”

    My response.
    NO wrong. I can absolutely assure you that the level of water restrictions are closely and flexibly manipulate for political reasons.

  24. Re the whole recycling debate, the way around it, the only way, is to do what happens now. At the end of a town you release the waste water, run it down a short river or creek, into the next towns storage and you never tell anyone south of Abury that they are drinking, in part, recycled water,. The completely irrational attitude to recycled water is yet again a victory of belief/fear over science.
    The Toowoomba referendum was a classic example. the anti-recycled water group had as their slogan, nothing about the purity of the water, but a slogan, “Stop our town being called Poohwoomba”. They won.

  25. Barking

    shattering response there. Love your use of argument, backing data and evidence.

    1. Water levels in storages is freely available information.

    2. Restrictions are based on storage trigger levels.

    3. Where restrictions do not match storage trigger levels, this has been duly noted (lots of articles when Melb went to 3A – or whatever it was – rather than 4).

    So the process is transparent, and where it has been ‘played with’ for political purposes, that information is also available.

    See http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water_conservation/water_restrictions/storage_trigger_levels.asp

  26. Zoomster,
    Now thats the whole point, of course there are these various triggers etc, I wonder who set them? Are they followed? do we imagine for a minute that the whole thing is done within the ministers office.
    My original point was that Holding was playing the Media for fools, well fair enough, but the government appoints these boards, as with many things in the great state the ALP use these boards, enquiries etc as tools for keeping criticism etc one degree removed.
    In the case of Water they have actively used the ‘Oh if its all right for Swan Hill to water their lawns’ its alright for Melbourne. Thats my point. Its not really surprising that they haven’t done it in an open and transparent way, thats why its clever?
    We all know about these triggers etc, totally irrelevant to the point.

  27. Barking

    Once again, assertion not evidence.

    [Now thats the whole point, of course there are these various triggers etc, I wonder who set them? Are they followed? do we imagine for a minute that the whole thing is done within the ministers office.]

    See the link above for that kind of information. The triggers are publically available, have been for yonks, so I’m sure they’ve been subject to all sorts of scrutiny. If the Minister alters them – as I admit he did with the Melbourne 3A – everyone knows about it.

    It is a transparent system. Read the link.

    [the ALP use these boards, enquiries etc as tools for keeping criticism etc one degree removed.]

    Well it’s a very cunning plan, in that case. Most water boards, by their nature, are personned by conservative types – in some cases, even ex Liberal Ministers (Tehan was on one, as was Plowman) have been appointed. They’re not so wedded to the ALP that (a) they won’t make independent decisions and (b) they wouldn’t squeal like stuck pigs if a decision of theirs was over ruled on political grounds.

    Labor people complain that when the Libs were in, these boards were stacked with Libs. Once Labor got in, the ALP was determined to show they weren’t like that, so they deliberately didn’t put ALP people on these boards (there are a few examples, but in most cases there is an argument these were made on merit). So the boards are still stacked with Lib/Nat types.

    And you can’t have it both ways, Barking. If you believe in democratic decision making at the local level, you can’t then argue that letting them make decisions is deflecting blame from the government.

    Are you asking for all of these decisions to be made in the Minister’s office?

    [In the case of Water they have actively used the ‘Oh if its all right for Swan Hill to water their lawns’ its alright for Melbourne.]

    You keep saying this. Please provide evidence.

    [Thats my point. Its not really surprising that they haven’t done it in an open and transparent way, thats why its clever?]

    If this is your point, it’s totally obscure. The double negative is confusing. Please say what you mean in a simpler way.

    I think you’re saying the government is clever by being underhanded and non transparent. If so, I would like you to produce evidence of this, rather than just saying it’s so.

  28. I’ve thought about your hinting that the ALP doesn’t use its own,. Now I wonder why, are they
    1) ,”Listen, we simply don’t have enough talent” Minister in the Vic Government,.
    2) ,”Its all organised, when they get bundled out all the old ALP people will be given a seat on some cushy board” Advisor to senior minister after a few too many drinks.
    3) so paranoid that they think that giving all these jobs to the old conservative hacks will help deflect the medias attention. This actually works, some of these rural water boards, for example, have some of the leading lights of the conservative side of politics and they do literally phone up the conservative editors of the conservative newspapers and tell them off.
    This is all conjecture and what the heck we all know that the Vatican elevation of our ex deputy Pm Peter Fisher just happened to coincide with the posting of Kim Beazley to the US jig so who cares.
    We are a long way for the innitial post here but I think what this does is seriously undermine the development of talent in the ALP. It should be promoting its young union/uni/law/professionals in these positions. Just cause its a good thing to do.
    Unfortunately they have fallen for the words of encouragement of the big end of town. Whilst I do not look forward to any conservative government, I do look forward to bumping into some ex ALP pollies in future years and asking them how all their fair weather conservative friends are now.

  29. [I’ve thought about your hinting that the ALP doesn’t use its own,. ]

    Not hinting, know from the experience of friends who were well and truly qualified.

    Not sure what you mean by 2. But if you mean that the same thing will happen under the Libs – that ALP people will be given jobs – no, it doesn’t happen. Quite the reverse. Under Kennett, there was active resistance to the employment of known ALP supporters (again, personal experience. Under Kennett, got endless amounts of work in NSW, never in Vic).

    Of course, it’s worse than that. Because ALP people don’t get given the experience, there’s no argument for them to be appointed after a change of govt.

    So the Libs always have well placed people in strategic places, regardless of government.

    3) Yes, you’re right. One of my friends, who WAS appointed (on the basis of her small business expertise, which had been recognised by even the Libs) found herself splashed across the local papers, described as a major mover and shaker in the Vic Labor party, which amused her greatly.

    [This is all conjecture and what the heck we all know that the Vatican elevation of our ex deputy Pm Peter Fisher just happened to coincide with the posting of Kim Beazley to the US jig so who cares.]

    Fischer (Tim, BTW) may have been a figleaf for Beazley, but what of all the other appointments of senior Libs to govt postings – Costello, Downer, Hill etc? No equivalent under Howard.

    [We are a long way for the innitial post here but I think what this does is seriously undermine the development of talent in the ALP. ]

    Yes, it does. It’s an example of good intentions coming back to bite you. Some in the ALP are too noble for their own (and the party’s) good.

    Bracks was very like that.

    Don’t think it’s anything to do with the big end of town, and can’t see how you get to that conclusion (except, of course, that you don’t want to credit the ALP with ever acting on principle).

  30. I think we have almost converged here, I sense a real frustration in your post, I share it and just wish the ALP would take no prisoners, because they started down this path its now hard for them to change. It also reinforces this absurd notion that unless you have a old school tie and daddy is a long term member of the club, you are somehow not able to sit on some board and oversee some pathetic $50 million public Authority that has a monopoly.
    There is a further point here and it relates to the public service, I so wish we had the American situation, how often do we see the old bureacracies just grind down administrations, I’ll give it to Brumby etc they do much better than in the old days, but it would be so much easier if they could just clear out the top two layers. Again this brings us back to the fact that they lack talent in the ‘organisation etc”.
    Mumbles frustration under breath and goes to get a strong coffee.

  31. [Mrs D was telling me that Melbourne doesn’t really need the Murray to Melb pipeline now, which was an interim measure, as you have enough reservoir water for Melb until the desal comes on line. Is that true?]

    You have to remember the pipeline was about more than Melbourne. It also serves Ballarat and Bendigo.

    As to Melbourne; I suspect that average punter would have been seriously pissed of if there had been no rain, no pipeline and Melbourne had ran out of water.

  32. The water issue is a classic, no one will vote ALP because they think they should take care of water anyway, but there are people who will vote against them for ‘stealing’ their water.
    On water, whilst eating my wheatbix this morning saw the last state government info session. Middle aged women, 97% of the earths water is in the sea, the desalination plant will bring xxx billions of litres of water to …… What the f, this political advertising is just to much.. I think the pollies don’t understand that sometimes it probably better just to shut up rather than listening to the advertising gurus who unsurprisingly tell you that this add is a cracker.

  33. Just before this thread disappears, just want to go on the record with a prediction, .The next edition of this poll will show a “narrowing”. Not much, 1% is my guess, maybe 2 max. Bails up 2-4 Brumby about the same, Greens 14-15%.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *