Essential Research: 50-50

The Essential Research rolling aggregate records an unusually sharp move away from the Coalition, and finds strong support for Senate reform legislation.

The normally placid Essential Research fortnightly rolling average records a rare two-point shift on two-party preferred this week, which eliminates a settled 52-48 lead for the Coalition over previous weeks. Particularly remarkable is a three point increase in the Labor primary vote, from 35% to 38%, although the Coalition is down only one to 43%, and the Greens are steady on 10%. Also featured is a very detailed question on Senate reform, in which the legislation was explained to respondents in meticulous detail, producing a result of 53% approval and 16% disapproval. A question on election timing finds 56% wanting the election held later this year versus 23% who want it called early, although the distinction is an increasingly fine one. Also featured: most important election issues (health topping the list, followed by economic and cost-of-living concerns), best party to handle them (Labor for industrial relations and environment, Coalition for national security and the economy, although Labor has a slight lead on housing affordability) and perceptions of the parties as right or left wing (indicating Labor is seen as more centrist than the Coalition, although there is little sense that this has changed in recent years). This week’s poll was conducted online Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1017, with the voting intention numbers also including the survey results from the previous week’s poll.

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.

1,038 comments on “Essential Research: 50-50”

Comments Page 3 of 21
1 2 3 4 … 21

  3. [
    Wow! 53% approval vs 16% disapproval on Senate reforms when explained in meticulous detail. Pretty comprehensive rejection of the Labor position. Restores my faith in the intelligence of the Australian people.
    ]
    Then again perhaps not:

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/election-experts-predict-senate-changes-will-encounter-high-court-challenge-20160301-gn72ru.html

    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/richard-di-natale-under-pressure-over-greenscoalition-deal-on-senate-voting-changes-20160301-gn7gue.html

  4. Puff, the Magic Dragon @ 81

    [ i do not want the ALP going anywhere near the asylum seeker issue. not one little bit. better to get into gov’t and start quietly unwinding the worst bits of the last 15 years of politicisation of it. the alp cannot help asylum seekers from opposition. SHY’s tears never helped even one AS or refugee.]

    Puff, I could not agree more. I do not like it, but the Australian public have implacably made up their mind that they will not elect anyone who will start the boats coming again (or to be honest, will just allow transparency in reporting – I doubt the boats have really stopped). This battle is going to have to be fought with great subtlety, and the media need to get on board with humanizing asylum seekers rather than demonizing them.

    I wish Kevin Rudd had put Malcolm Fraser in charge of developing asylum seeker policy, to stop things coming to the sorry pass they have, but it did not happen. I certainly never predicted that asylum seekers could have become such a vexed issue, but of course, I should have remembered the Tampa election.

    Labor cannot help the asylum seekers from opposition, and I am so sick of watching coalition policy destroy this country.

    The number of new homeless people in inner city Sydney is sickening. And I need to keep my bipolar son at home, so he does not join their ranks, despite his aggression when his meds are not working. However, under the current system, we do not qualify for an iota of help, from anyone. And his inability to work for the dole – the places that name-redacted-Employment send him just send him home – means that he will probably lose his Newstart, and his healthcare card. Apparently even the Salvos have some standards, whereas the employment agency just tells him to get sane, and start working for the dole. They should be publishing in psychiatric journals. I had no idea it was so easy to make someone sane – just tell them to be sane, and if they do not do it, make sure they cannot eat or get shelter. Also, name-redacted-Employment is a large US firm who basically has the US employment agency sewn up. All the places like Mission Employment, where they were trying to help people, have been thrown to the wolves for large for-profit providers.

    The loss of the healthcare card will hurt us badly. After having to pay full price for his meds from 14 until he turned 21, I know we will scrape to afford it. We are now a 1 income family c.f 2 incomes back then, and the doctor’s bills etc really do take a large chunk out of that income.

    My local doctor tells me that none of the local people can afford psychiatric care, and it really shows in their mortality and morbidity rates compared to someone like me, who has never gone without.

    The other thing I note – sorry, diatribe here – is that the newly homeless people in Sydney are no longer obviously mentally ill. In Santiago de Chile, where I have sometimes lived over the last two decades, one of the first things I noticed was that there were many homeless people and families who were quite normal, unlike Australia, where most homeless people have a fairly obvious mental health (or sadly low IQ) problem. This is thanks to the Chicago boys (Milton Friedman and friends) who advised Pinochet, and turned Chile into a neo-liberal paradise. The country is still shaking off the legacy.

    However, now in Sydney, for the first time, I am seeing people sleeping rough at our nearby parks, and at Central station, who are quite normal. They have quite a few suitcases with them, obviously hoping to hold on to their possessions until they can find other accommodation. Some sleep in cars, and I noticed one woman recently doing her washing in the fountain and laying it out on the grass to dry.

    How did we get here, and how can we get out of this mess?

    Taking the coalition head-on on asylum seekers will ensure them another three years in government, and in this situation we do need to make Sophie’s Choice, as horrible as it is.

  5. Do give it a rest Pegasus, the Greens do NOT possess the high ground in this.

    If the changes was really about empowering the voters and improving democracy, the Greens and the Coalition would’ve taken them to the voters at the election, instead of stitching up a dirty deal behind closed doors.

  6. [ What a hollow and cynical political strategy – the party first, voter empowerment and a step towards improved democratic processes a distant second. ]

    Its an election year, and the most important thing is getting rid of the Libs. Sooo…whatever works, especially on low order issues, then focus on stuff people actually give a toss about.

    Will be interesting to see what further happens with Senate Voting. I think that the logical next move will be OPV below the line.

  7. [What a hollow and cynical political strategy – the party first, voter empowerment and a step towards improved democratic processes a distant second.]

    Only if you believe it is a step towards voter empowerment and improved democratic process.

    Many don’t.

  8. Douglas and Milko

    [However, now in Sydney, for the first time, I am seeing people sleeping rough at our nearby parks, and at Central station, who are quite normal. They have quite a few suitcases with them, obviously hoping to hold on to their possessions until they can find other accommodation. Some sleep in cars, and I noticed one woman recently doing her washing in the fountain and laying it out on the grass to dry.

    How did we get here, and how can we get out of this mess?]

    I worked for the State Member for Port Jackson for more than four years the seat is now Balmain.

    I was shocked back then by how many people were sleeping rough in parks and shop doorways.

    Go and make a meeting with your Local State Member and I would advise you to take your son with you.

    Tell them your story and see what they say and don’t let them put you off.

    God Bless you both I know how very difficult your situation is and I wish you both the very best.

  9. It does seem like the Greens have fallen for the old “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, it must be done.”

    Rushing in to approving legislation without consideration of alternative views always ends in tears.

    I’m hearing a High Court Challenge is on the cards.

  10. Talcum is slip sliding away.

    And I love this:

    “Also featured is a very detailed question on Senate reform, in which the legislation was explained to respondents in meticulous detail, producing a result of 53% approval and 16% disapproval.”

  11. Well, well, well.
    50/50 eh? And it’s Essential.

    Strengthens my view that Turnbull is unravelling, caught as he is between expectations that he would drag his party to the centre and the reality that he is beholden to the hard right. Particularly with Abbott giving free advice about what Turnbull should do with the budget.

  12. I haven’t been able to get excited about the Senate vote changes. Voting systems are arbitrary, which is why there are so many different one’s around the world.

    If you were talking about a real change, like making it more proportional, it could get interesting. It takes 15 times as many NSW voter’s as Tasmainian’s to elect a senator.

    Having said that, I hope the GRN’s push it through and Turnbull goes the DD 🙂

  14. Fascinating.

    GhostWhoVotes ‏@GhostWhoVotes · Feb 28

    #ReachTEL Poll Seat of New England Primary Votes: Joyce NAT 39.5 Windsor IND 32.2 ALP 11.2 GRN 4.6 #auspol

  15. [Wow! 53% approval vs 16% disapproval on Senate reforms when explained in meticulous detail. Pretty comprehensive rejection of the Labor position. Restores my faith in the intelligence of the Australian people.]

    Selective use of polling can come back and bite you. e.g. 9 people out of 10 reject the Greens, so is there wisdom in that? What does that say about that 1 who support the Greens?

  16. Veteran psephologist Malcolm Mackerras said the voting changes – which would clear the way for a snap double-dissolution election likely to clean out the current crossbench – stemmed from a “filthy deal” between the Greens and the Liberal Party, “led by the unelected, dud Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull”.

    Would there be time for the High Court to hear a challenge if a DD were called, if not the election could be void if he HC were to rule it invalid.

  17. If Labor wins later this year, as is looking increasingly likely, I reckon they will be thanking their lucky stars that the Senate reforms were passed before the upcoming election.

    The alternate would almost certainly mean at least 4-5 extra randomly elected, vaguely right-wing crossbenchers on top of current crop, Xenophon and the Greens. While I don’t doubt that Shorten and Labor will prove far more effective negotiators than the Coalition did, and that the Greens are likely to be pushed back into the BOP simply due to the extra Labor Senators that an election victory would inevitably elect, it still has the potential to be an utter mess, especially if its Labor that loses out to micro candidates due to preference harvesting.

    I’m all for a messy, multi-coloured parliament is that’s what people have genuinely voted for, but that’s not really the case when parties are leaping ahead on preferences that (in the vast majority of cases) weren’t directed by voters. As Kevin Bonham astutely pointed out, and as has been amply demonstrated by the crossbenchers utter terror at the changes, candidates elected through this sort of GTV manipulation just arn’t really that accountable to the people – their primary concern is being able to compete in the micro party lottery once again, not whether their primary vote or (intentionally directed) preferences will increase or decrease when they next go to the polls.

    We got (mostly) lucky with the current crossbench. Next time, instead of the likes of Ricky Muir or Glenn Lazarus, we could easily end up with, say, Danny Nalliah or that crazy homophobe from Tasmania. And, again, that’s fair enough if they are elected from a decent primary vote and/or (intentional) preferences, but not when most of their votes come from people who just wanted to vote for the Carer’s Alliance or the Shooters and Fishers or the Sex Party and probably didn’t even realise that voting 1 would result in preferences being directed somewhere, let alone what parties their preferences were going to.

  18. You know, that “you are posting too quickly” message might be annoying, but it does have the advantage of helping me catch the several dozen typos my posts inevitably contain.

  21. Looking more bleak for the Greens.

    Sam W ‏@Sammmw2 · 26m26 minutes ago

    Antony Green agrees with ALP that @Greens are selling out The Senate! @SenatorSiewert @larissawaters @RichardDiNatale @SenatorLudlam #auspol

  23. Veteran psephologist Malcolm Mackerras

    Isn’t he the guy who makes bold election predictions that are invariably wrong? That’s his thing, right?

  26. @JimmyDoyle

    [If the changes was really about empowering the voters and improving democracy, the Greens and the Coalition would’ve taken them to the voters at the election]

    If they were taken to an election, the Senate couldn’t possibly be reformed until after another 4-5+ micro party Senators had been elected through the GTV lottery, all of whom would have a vested interest in keeping things the same. I just don’t see how it has been rushed at all, to be honest – I’m mostly surprised that it has taken this long to get around to it!

    And, come on. A couple more polls like last week’s Newspoll and today’s Essential, and there will be a more chance of the Liberals electinge as their next leader then of Turnbull calling a Double Dissolution. If the crossbenchers fall for the Coalition’s bluff and allow themselves to be bullied into passing legislation, then that’s on them, and only increases my belief that the system needs to be changed.

  27. I’m not sure if a high court challenge against this Senate reform proposal will be successful.

    If it is, the current system would have been just as vulnerable to challenge.

  30. I do agree that we need OPV below the line as well, though I consider a system where GTVs are abolished but BTL votes remain full preferential to still be vastly improved on the current system, if still rather flawed. Hopefully the legislation is amended before it is passed.

    It is, however, somewhat amusing to see a lot of the same people fretting about OPV above the line “disenfranchising” voters now complaining that there won’t be OPV below the line

  31. [I’m hearing a High Court Challenge is on the cards.]

    Assuming one of the duly elected senators who quite rightly feel this is an attack on them is motivated and funded to run a challenge, presumably the High Court can dispense its constitutional wisdom while the AEC implements the new law. Presumably falling back to the old law wouldn’t take three months.

    Although I’m not at all persuaded by the argument because I’m not at all persuaded voting below the line is as hard as the OPV cult.

    If the HC accepted the OPV cult’s argument that BTL was practically impossible for a voter I guess it is possible the ballot fails to provide a method for senators to be ‘directly chosen by the people of the State’, because the only practical option is to vote for parties. That argument is complicated by the current situation which presumably would fall foul of the same hurdle, if such a hurdle exists.

  32. Other then when there was a Upper House majority, the government has always had to win over the Senate. It had to work pretty hard but it managed to drive through its main programme. e.g. Howard did the GST and Marbo amendment.

    This mob just don’t like to work hard to get a compromised or balanced outcome.

  33. The issues being raised are, IMHO, psephological niceties rather than things that will see it fall over in the high court.

    That said, I completely gree with Green, Maley et al that adding optional BTL as well would be even better than the current package. That remains the GRNs position.

    But franlkly, Im not risking keeping the undemocratic abomination of group voting tickets. If thats the price of further pissfarting, hello compulsory BTL! Ive always liked you! etc.

  34. [Abbott, who over the weekend wrote that he wore his 2014 budget as a “badge of honour”]

    The man knows no shame.

  36. Greensborough Growler@121

    Looking more bleak for the Greens.

    Sam W ‏@Sammmw2 · 26m26 minutes ago

    Antony Green agrees with ALP that @Greens are selling out The Senate! @SenatorSiewert @larissawaters @RichardDiNatale @SenatorLudlam #auspol

    I’d like to see the context for this. Reading his submission to the JSCEM yesterday, it looks like he is fairly satisfied with the proposal but think it could have more done with BTL votes.

  37. lefty e

    [More ALP voters support the Senate reform proposal than even GRN voters. See Essential today.]

    I think the most that can be said is that voters support change to Senate voting. But 99.9 of them don’t understand how it currently works – me included.

    I doubt that even the majority of Senators understand it.

  38. Asha Leu -The reality is that these proposals are about advancing the interests of the Greens and the Coalition, which is fine, but they really need to stop carrying on about “promoting democracy”.

    As an example of how this was rushed, there is no provision in the deal to forbid a “just vote 1” campaign, as there is in SA.

  39. [He has stated that the Greens would not do anything to actively facilitate a double dissolution but will back voting reforms no matter what the electoral fall out for the party.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/richard-di-natale-under-pressure-over-greenscoalition-deal-on-senate-voting-changes-20160301-gn7gue.html#ixzz41dWzzVos
    Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook]

    Not do anything to actively facilitate a DD would include passing interim supply wouldn’t it Richard? You would think so.

    Looks like the DD might be off again folks.

    Damn I would LMAO if Malcolm has locked himself in for July and he has to pull out because he’ll run out of money.

  41. Airlines,

    Ewart Dave ‏@davidbewart · 1h1 hour ago

    Malcolm Mackerras has also predicted the voting changes will be immediately challenged in the High Court because they are unconstitutional.

  42. [‘Abbott, who over the weekend wrote that he wore his 2014 budget as a “badge of honour”’]

    That should be on a Labor election poster, plus a quote from Malcolm giving his full support to every measure in that Budget.

  44. Yes Raaraa and WWP, I think you’re both right about the possibility of a High Court challenge succeeding. What the HC did in both Roach and Rowe was to invalidate amendments that made elections less a matter of direct choice by the people. This proposal, as even WWP now seems to be conceding, gives us all a more direct choice, even though it’s still imperfect*. If anyone later tried to amend it back to the use of GVTs (and who would be in favour of that apart from Glen Druery and friends?) then a challenge might have a chance.

    * And after the Committee has been deluged with submissions arguing for OPV BTL too, who knows what they might come up with tonight? Then we will have to see whether the gummint and ALP stick to their guns – they’re really addiicted to being able to arrange the order on the ticket knowing that few will deviate from it.

    For those who like reading legal judgements with a whiff of political philosophy:
    Roach – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/43.html
    Rowe – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2010/46.html

  45. I’m old enough to recall a 1972 election poster, showing Whitlam as the fearsome union boss Bob Hawke wearing a Gough mask. Of course Hawke was popular except with people who would never vote Labor, so that poster probably helped Labor.

    But maybe Labor could do a similar poster with Abbott in a Turnbull mask. Given that Abbott is about as popular as herpes, that would be scary.

  46. Airlines,

    My ‘cut and paste” post has the name of the poster. So, I suggest you try tracking that down.

  47. [they’re really addiicted to being able to arrange the order on the ticket knowing that few will deviate from it.]

    which is why OPV below the line should be in play.

  48. And GG, I suspect that SamW whom you quoted may have confused Antony Green and Malcolm Mackerras. Lots do – they’re both very nerdy psephos, but they’ve been feuding up a storm lately.

  49. [Not do anything to actively facilitate a DD would include passing interim supply wouldn’t it Richard? You would think so.

    Looks like the DD might be off again folks.
    ]

    Labor would be insane to oppose a interim supply bill, and with polling in this range they’d be insane not to embrace a DD election.

    Clearing out the 2013 result would be a gift surely.

  50. GG, 146

    I did, I still couldn’t find the comments, unfortunately. Though, this person is producing various misinformed comments on the state of the Senate regarding a potential Double Dissolution (which have been easily discounted by Antony Green and Kevin Bonham).

    They did, however, link this article:

    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/01/proposed-senate-voting-rules-legally-vulnerable-and-incoherent-experts?CMP=share_btn_tw

    The only comment I could find from Antony Green on the matter was this:

    [Green, who is also giving testimony, welcomed the changes, but said voters below the line should be permitted to fill fewer than all the boxes.]

    That would indicate that he still supports the legislation, would it not?

Comments Page 3 of 21
1 2 3 4 … 21

Leave a Reply

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