Newspoll: New England and Lyne

The Australian brings results of a Newspoll survey conducted from Tuesday to Saturday in Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott’s regional NSW seats of New England and Lyne. The polls targeted about 500 voters each, producing margins of error of a little under 4.5 per cent. As expected, the results indicate a plunge in support for the incumbents since the election and their subsequent decision to back a Labor minority government. In New England, the poll has Tony Windsor at 33 per cent compared with 61.9 per cent at the election, with the Nationals at 41 per cent compared with 25.2 per cent. In Lyne, Rob Oakeshott’s primary vote is at 26 per cent compared with 47.1 per cent at the 2010 election, and the Nationals are at 47 per cent compared with 34.4 per cent.

Determining two-candidate preferred results for individual electorates in circumstances so radically different from the previous election is problematic, and Newspoll has done the best that could be done under the circumstances by publishing both previous-election and respondent-allocated measures. In New England, the previous election measure has Windsor and the Nationals tied at 50-50. Unfortunately we do not have a full set of primary vote figures at this stage, but it would seem to me from the two-candidate result that the “others” vote (excluding Windsor, Nationals, Labor and Greens) must be in the mid-teens. UPDATE: Full tables here courtesy of GhostWhoVotes – “others” is at 14 per cent in Lyne and 13 per cent in New England. At the 2010 election it was only 1.2 per cent, that being the combined total for One Nation and the Citizens Electoral Council. To apply these parties’ preference distribution to such a large chunk of the vote is obviously imprecise at best. The respondent-allocated preference measure has Windsor trailing 53-47, but this has problems of its own – in particular it requires respondents to make up their own mind, when many will in fact follow how-to-vote cards.

In Lyne, Rob Oakeshott trails 62-38 on respondent-allocated preferences and 55-45 on the previous election results. Similarly to the New England poll, the latter figure appears to have been obtained by amplifying a mid-teens “others” vote through the 2010 preference distribution of one independent who polled 0.7 per cent. While this is by any measure a depressing set of figures for Oakeshott, it is a good deal better for him than a ReachTel automated phone poll conducted in August, which had the Nationals leading 55 per cent to 15 per cent on the primary vote. That poll was rightly criticised at the time for asking about the carbon tax and pokies reform before getting to voting intention. It may also raise doubts about the precision of automated phone polling, which in this country at least has a patchy record (though it seems to be a different story in the United States).

Another difficulty with polls for these two seats is that it is not yet clear which candidates the Nationals will be running, which can have a very significant bearing on regional seats especially. After initially stating he wasn’t interested, the party’s state leader Andrew Stoner has recently said he would “never say never” to the prospect of running in Lyne, with earlier reports suggesting he was being “courted” to make such a move with a view to replacing Warren Truss as federal leader. This was said to be partly motivated by a desire to block a similar move by Barnaby Joyce, who has declared his interest in New England. However, Tony Abbott has said the candidate in Lyne from 2010, Port Macquarie medical specialist David Gillespie, would get “wholehearted support” if he wanted to run again. According to a flattering profile of Abbott by Tom Dusevic in The Weekend Australian, Gillespie is a “boyhood friend” of Abbott’s.

Newspoll also sought approval ratings for the two independents and gauged opinion on their decisions to support the Labor minority government and the carbon tax legislation. This provided one heartening result for Tony Windsor, who retains the approval of 50 per cent of his constituents with 44 per cent disapproving (UPDATE: Sorry, got that the wrong way around). Rob Oakeshott’s respective ratings are 38 per cent and 54 per cent. Voters in Lyne were the more hostile to their member’s support for the Labor government: 32 per cent were supportive and 61 opposed, against 36 per cent and 54 per cent in New England. The results on the carbon tax seem to have been effectively identical, with respective opposition of 72 per cent and 71 per cent. Only 22 per cent of respondents in Lyne were supportive; The Australian’s article neglects to provide a figure for New England, but it can be presumed to have been very similar.

UPDATE: The weekly Essential Research has the two-party preferred steady at 55-45, although Labor is off a point on the primary to 32 per cent with the Coalition and the Greens steady on 48 per cent and 11 per cent respectively. My favourite of the supplementary questions, as it was at my suggestion, gauges current opinion of major reforms of the past few decades, which gives a resounding thumbs-up to compulsory superannuation and Medicare, strong support to floating the dollar and free trade agreements, a fairly modest majority in favour of the GST. Privatisations, however, are opposed in retrospect as well as prospect, although reversing those already conducted has only bare majority support. For some reason though, more support regulating the dollar than thought it was a bad idea in the first place, and a big majority favour increasing trade protection. Other questions relate to a republic (41 per cent for, 33 per cent against), the Commonwealth (47 per cent believe membership of benefit) and succession to the throne (61 per cent believe it should be gender-neutral) and who is to blame for the Qantas dispute (management by and large).

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.

815 comments on “Newspoll: New England and Lyne”

Comments Page 7 of 17
1 … 6 7 8 … 17

  1. [How is this done via a phone number? Remember numbers are no longer exchange specific. Did Newspoll ask if the person was in the electorate at all?]

    Couldn’t they pick random numbers from local phone books in the way telemarketers (used) to?

  3. Opening the Drum Unleashed today, I saw once again the photo of Abbott advancing towards Her Maj, yapping away. It reminded me that when he was leaving, she said in reply to something he had said: wtte “a minority govt can be difficult”.
    I suspect that she was using a time-honoured method of dismissing him by walking towards the door as she spoke, in effect ushering him out.
    I bet he did a virtual repeat of one of his infamous MPIs. Probably hoped she’d be so persuaded by his eloquence that she’d advise the GG to dismiss the “illegitimate” Gillard govt.
    Just a thought.

  4. I think phone numbers are pretty much location specific in Lyne (PM 658xxxxx, Taree 655xxxxx and Gloucester 653xxxxx)- my question particularly relates to Gloucester which was added to the electorate before the last election, is a true rural area with no loyalty to RO and in fact voted for the Nats in 2010. A preponderance either way for Gloucester could skew the poll.

  7. 299

    That Australia Act won`t have touched it.

    I would think that since at least the Statute of Westminster (adopted by Australia in 1942) if not the Balfour Declaration (1926), the use of section 59, would be used on the advice of the Australian PM not the UK PM/Cabinet (as the section was obviously originally intended).

    Also I doubt that a section the Constitution could be made a dead section by an act.

  8. [Didn’t the Australia Act of 1987 make 59 a dead section]

    Only for State Legislation. Betty Windsor could technically annul any law, but the likelyhood of it ever happening is zero.
    (Except in the minds of Convoyers).

  9. How is this done via a phone number? Remember numbers are no longer exchange specific. Did Newspoll ask if the person was in the electorate at all?

    I always assumed that the polling organisation just ask as part of the demographics questions what their postcode is… then they don’t need to rely on the vagaries of the telephone system. I could be wrong – I’m one of the unpollable and have never been called so it’s all theoretical for me 🙁

  11. [I think phone numbers are pretty much location specific in Lyne (PM 658xxxxx, Taree 655xxxxx and Gloucester 653xxxxx)- ]

    That used to be the case 10 years ago and most numbers probably do still fall within this scheme. My point is that ~10% do not. This makes individual seat polling difficult.

    (I accept it is easier in rural electorates)

  12. the use of section 59, would be used on the advice of the Australian PM

    I think, as we discussed in the earlier conversation about this, that the Queen simply would not use this section even if asked to by the Australian PM.

    There is no way the Queen would get herself embroiled in something so clearly controversial when there is no good reason to do so. Section 59 is not a ‘circuit breaking’ power; the Australian parliament can repeal any legislation it likes without the Queen intervening, with all the other circuit breaking mechanisms – double dissolutions etc.

    Just because Tony Abbott (or any other potential future Prime Minister) stamps his foot and says “I want it NOW, not 3 years from now” is no reason for the Queen or anyone else to subvert our institutions and systems, and the Queen or future monarch would be crazy to tarnish the Royal family and monarchist support by being part of any such tantrum.

  14. [ruawake

    Posted Monday, October 24, 2011 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    what their postcode is…

    My postcode covers Fairfax and Fisher not much use to a pollster doing seat level polling.
    ]

    And mine covers Pearce and Hasluck get’s interesting at Election time 🙂

  15. dave @ 291:

    [He has made enough enemies to last a dozen lifetimes and the bill will squared up somewhere along the line.]

    Agree.

    Apart from certain Middle-Eastern leaders, Rupert Murdoch must be one of the most despised person in the World.

    His time is nigh, even though he fools some with his dementia-like symptoms, which conveniently come to the fore when attempting to protect his empire.

    I’m reminded of Orson Wells’ indirect reference to, I think, Randolph Hurst:

    [Criminals are never very amusing. It’s because they’re failures. Those who make real money aren’t counted as criminals. This is a class distinction, not an ethical problem.]

  17. My postcode covers Fairfax and Fisher not much use to a pollster doing seat level polling.

    Given the nature of seat based polling I’d be fairly confident ‘near enough is good enough’…

  18. The high court is quite adventurous and has interpreted some acts in a way which has killed some sections of the constitution e.g nationality requirements for election to parliament

    The Australia Act specifically prevents the referral “home” of consent to state legislation – the High Court may well say that what is good for the goose is by implication good for the gander. Also the high court would know that the purpose of sect 59 was that the GG would be advised by the home government not to give consent to a federal act which has been passed by parliament- the Australia Act specifically removes the home government from Australian affairs.

    In any case it only applies for 12 months, consent will be given sometime in the next few months and the section will be irrelevant by the time of the next election. Of course the independents may now see that the jig is up and bring Abbott in as PM before then – about as likely as section 59 being applied.

  19. In any case s59 will not be required because, according to Abbott, whoever is the new Labor opposition leader will accept Abbott has a mandate and support his move to repeal the carbon tax legislation.

  20. So the OO commissions specific seat polls 2 years out from an election. useful indeed. Its good in the sense that it feeds into wingnut expectations of an imminent election/overthrow of the government, and the longer that abbott doesnt deliver that, the more he will be shown as a failure.

    Someone said earlier in the thread about the Libs hoping Abbott doesnt say or do anything stupid in the lead up to the election. The reality is he does this ALL THE TIME, but he gets away with it. The “no means no” during the campaign, the Riley stare, the shit happens, the threats to business etc etc. Its not Abbotts performance that will bring him undone, its media scrutiny and critical analysis that will

  22. leone@279 – good, you’ll be able to keep us informed of what is happening with the local media up there. I have friends in Port Macq and I am in the top half of Paterson (next door to you)

  23. 308

    Section 59 deals only with Commonwealth Law. State laws were subject to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 until the Australia Act 1986.

    I would not put it passed Abbott to advise the Queen to Section 59 legislation he opposed (that still met the 1 year criteria) if he won. The only thing that would matter is whether the Queen decided that it was a matter (like deciding who the GG is) on which the Queen acts on advice or a reserve power subject to her discretion (and likely refusal). As Section 59 was originally designed for use by the UK Cabinet not as a reserve power for the Queen to Australian Legislation there is a serious argument that if PM Abbott advised the Queen would be bound to act.

    This makes it very important that Abbott not win an election.

  25. Tom s59 uses the word “may” so HM is not obliged to act. I think there is less chance in HM acting than Abbott attempting to use s59 and there is virtually no chance Abbott would attempt something so absurd.

  26. I agree Tom it would be a political suicide if any Australian PM asked the Queen to overturn Australian law. Abbott may be a lot of things but he far from being stupid.

  27. Does anyone know if it’s intended that all mobile phone numbers will be listed in the White Pages or will the listing remain voluntary?

    It may be that some time down the track the newspaper only polling will have to be a mix of landline, mobile and online to get correct stats.

  28. 312

    The Queen may well feel that she is unable to refuse the advice of the Australian PM on an issue that does not involve the confidence of the Government on the floor of the House (reserve power).

  30. DavidWH
    Posted Monday, October 24, 2011 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    …….. according to Abbott, whoever is the new Labor opposition leader will accept Abbott has a mandate and support his move to repeal the carbon tax legislation.

    If, big IF, abbott ever becomes PM he will learn very quickly that Labor will not agree.

    But he probably already realises this, its all just more hot air from him.

  31. 318

    Repealing Section 59 with a referendum is entirely within the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament and they have not done so. The High Court could not and would not strike out a usage of Section 59 just because it is an anachronism.

  34. As I said yesterday, the psychology of all this interests me.

    The wingnuts are almost at the point where the next argument one expects to see is along the lines of “The Rapture will have occurred before then, so the carbon price will never be implemented.”

    Such desperation suggests that (a) a recognition that once the carbon price is in, it will be accepted, therefore it must not be implemented at any cost; (b) a recognition that an implemented carbon price will vanish forever the dream of a wingnut for PM.

    All of which suggests that even they recognise it’s all over red rover and Labor’s going to back in government after the next election.

  36. Section 59 is a mechanism that was to allow a UK government to overturn the legislative processes of the Commonwealth Parliament. To say that the Australian government can now use this mechanism to overturn the legislative process is at odds with the intent of the Constitution and I don’t think the Statute of Westminster has such power to make such a major change the constitution. It would go to the High Court, and given past judgments that Australia’s constitution is based on the principles of responsible government, such a use of Section 59 would almost certainly be tossed out.

    Would the Queen want to accept advice that the High Court may sit in judgment on whether she is entitled to receive? I doubt anyone would want to go down that path, especially the Queen.

  38. 325

    If section 59 used the word “shall” instead of “may” then none of our Commonwealth Legislation would last beyond a year.

  39. [anyone quoting s59 forgets one important factor

    the GG]

    Yep she may fail to proclaim it. Betty would not entertain such a pickle. 🙂

  43. A further interesting feature of the Lyne poll is that the Nats are still 5-10% below the pv they regularly received prior to RO. Labor and the Greens combined are about 13% and adding all those to RO ( a fairly safe assumption) gives him his preferred vote. As someone has already said the 14% “others” are obviously unhappy with ROs support of the government but are not yet willing to go back to the NATs.
    The exact wording of the question is not given so it is also possible that this group also includes people who think that they vote for the Liberals at election time (this is not an insignificant group in Port Macquarie)

  46. Tfab

    [The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor‑General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor‑General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.]

    I reckon Quenty has to do something. 😛

  47. I just saw Abbott banging his gums about something or the other on a news grab. Waste I think. I’m probably wrong, usually are, but to me he looked like someone going through the motions. Very much like someone resigned to their fate. As I don’t watch Abbott that much I could be wrong.

  48. [The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor‑General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor‑General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.]

    NB it says GG not PM

  49. [Shift to #ALP in fed election betting last few days.]

    So can we look forward to breathless stories about what this really means? 😉

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 7 of 17
1 … 6 7 8 … 17