Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor

No change on voting intention from Essential Research, but Malcolm Turnbull’s personal ratings improve slightly after post-election dip.

No change in the two-party preferred reading of the Essential Research fortnightly rolling average this week, with Labor maintaining a lead of 52-48. On the primary vote, the Coalition is up a point to 40% and Labor, the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team are steady on 37%, 10% and 4%. Monthly leadership ratings find Malcolm Turnbull recovering slightly from his post-election dip, with approval up one to 38% and disapproval down five to 43%, while Bill Shorten is respectively down two to 37% and steady at 41%. Turnbull’s lead on preferred prime minister is up from 39-31 to 40-30. Other questions find opinion finely balanced on the effect on Australia of “globalisation” (29% gained, 29% lost, 18% neither). Forty per cent of respondents were ready to subscribe to the frankly idiotic view that “Australian trade with other countries” causes Australia to lose more jobs than it gains, with only 28% providing the correct and obvious answer. The poll also finds 45% approving of the census keeping names and addresses versus 39% disapproving; 47% saying the state of the economy is getting worse, with only 13% saying it’s getting better and 25% saying the recent interest rate cut will make them better off versus 29% for worse off.

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.

3,566 comments on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor”

Comments Page 2 of 72
1 2 3 72
  1. zoomster @ #33 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    PlayerOne
    No, I’m not. I’m using evidence garnered from nearly one hundred interactions with people – which countered my own expectations.
    Nicole is simply going by what she thinks to be true, without any evidence at all that I can see to back it up.

    You seem to have conveniently forgotten my reference to polling on trust in institutions which has been conducted. That is a lot more than one persons opinion based upon interaction with the public. Ever noticed on election day handing out HTV’s how almost everyone politely takes your HTV even if they have no intention of voting for you. If we used your logic, based on the reception I received when handing out HTV’s in a retirement village, Labor would have won in a landslide yet quite the opposite occurred.

  2. “To provide a richer and dynamic statistical picture of Australia”.
    It doesn’t even make grammatical sense. I bet they’re going to sell it.

  3. Adrian I’m not sure. Reading the recent forms there was nothing on them to indicate that those questions were optional though.

  4. ‘…but Nicole has plenty of evidence on her side that the census is not trusted – even if you just go by what has been posted here today, that includes the opinions of the previous Chief Statistician, the NSW Privacy Commissioner, the deputy Privacy Commissioner, several lawyers, several Members of Parliament, Electronic Frontiers Australia…’

    But these people are all loons according to PB’s resident expert.

  5. Dio:

    In previous Censuses personal identifiers such as names have been destroyed once the data has been extracted and analysed, and nor were any identifiers retained to associate with your census data.

    That is not happening this time around, and to date I’m yet to hear a logical coherent reason for why it needed changing. “Tracking data over time” so we can “get a more accurate picture of indigenous life expectancy” doesn’t cut it with me.

  6. diogenes @ #44 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    What is the reason we have to put our names on the census this time?

    To link your census data to other data sets. All government departments will use the same algorithm to anonymize names, allowing them to share your data without breaching privacy requirements. The big problem is of course that anybody with access to the algorithm and a suitable database (e.g. the electoral roll) can also de-anonymize your data.

    But really you don’t even need to de-anonymize it. As many people have pointed out, once the linked data set is “rich” enough, it is easy to identify individuals even if the name remains anonymized.

  7. Adrian:

    I did the census online last time and you had to give your name simply because you couldn’t move forward in the survey. I can’t recall whether the paper forms required names.

  8. adrian @ #47 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    ‘Further solid evidence in support of completing the census and taking it seriously – the loons oppose it.’
    ‘Loons’, ‘nutjobs’. Are your comprehensions skills that bad you twerp?
    Yes I’m resorting to insults because you’re so damn annoying sometimes!
    Are you like this in real life?

    It is only here I encounter loons (greens) and nutjobs. 😀

  9. Today’s Essential poll pretty much shows opinion evenly split among those who approve of the ABS retaining identifying data in the census vs those disapproving, as per William’s post.

  10. Player

    I think that people may well choose to not include any data that might be at all compromising, should it get into the hands of another government agency. For example if you are co-habiting while on a single pension and you include your name, chances are it will trigger a visit from Centrelink so people may be reluctant to be honest. Ditto any income received which they fear might jeopardise their pension.

  11. The discussion in the podcast Rod H linked to on the previous page included the scary fact of the 2004 US Census being mined for information about muslims by national security agencies. Is this a valid use of census data by governments even if it is legal?

  12. adrian @ #57 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    ‘…but Nicole has plenty of evidence on her side that the census is not trusted – even if you just go by what has been posted here today, that includes the opinions of the previous Chief Statistician, the NSW Privacy Commissioner, the deputy Privacy Commissioner, several lawyers, several Members of Parliament, Electronic Frontiers Australia…’
    But these people are all loons according to PB’s resident expert.

    Of course there is distrust.
    When you have nutjobs and loons running around telling anyone who will listen that all sorts of terrible things will flow from the census, some people will become alarmed.

  13. ” It is possible that they might try to link census information over time.

    That is exactly what they are wanting to do.”

    I don’t they can do that. They have to destroy the data after four years so it won’t be around in five years when the next census happens.

  14. Our name is just a convenient identifier. They don’t actually have to use it, they could do other things, it’s just that those other things would take more effort.

    If the reason is to create a historical picture, and they don’t really want the name, just a id to link the picture together, then they’re being lazy.

  15. I don’t they can do that. They have to destroy the data after four years so it won’t be around in five years when the next census happens.

    That’s why each person will be assigned their own individual numerical identifier. The raw names will be destroyed, but the data will forever be assigned to that numerical identifier.

  16. Confessions

    Is this a valid use of census data by governments even if it is legal?

    Legal – yes. Valid – questionable.

    In WWII census information was used to round up and imprison Japanese-Americans.

  17. ‘Gee, who to trust? … people who know what they’re talking about, or PB’s resident expert … such a difficult decision … : )’

    Yeah, that’s a tough one.

  18. adrian @ #74 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    ‘Gee, who to trust? … people who know what they’re talking about, or PB’s resident expert … such a difficult decision … : )’
    Yeah, that’s a tough one.

    Try Andrew Leigh who I quoted earlier at length.
    I have never professed to be an expert, I merely take notice of people who truly are.

  19. You should all be aware that if you don’t fill the the Census in completely you could find yourself on the edge of incurring a fine.

  20. DN
    “No, it destroys trust in the census, and gives reason to fill it in incorrectly.”
    Just between you and me, that’s what I did. It was quite fun.

  21. Confessions

    Why not just get us all a tag in our ear. Then the census collectors need only to wave a recorder. Indeed even better, they could just drive down a street recording the bar codes of us all at each address, just like the electricity meter people now do. So if the census collectors drive down the street at say 3 AM thay can record us all at whatever address we sleep at.

    The bar code would of course indicate our religion and the number of kids etc and our tax file number. Easy peasy. It would be updated every time you go to hospital to or centrelink. You know it makes sense

  22. No, it destroys trust in the census, and gives reason to fill it in incorrectly.

    Of course it does. This incidentally has been my complaint about the changes to the census since the get-go. We currently have a fantastic, robust and universal collection of information about our population. Why mess with that when it already serves its purpose?

    Just crazy.

  23. daretotread @ #79 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Confessions
    Why not just get us all a tag in our ear. Then the census collectors need only to wave a recorder. Indeed even better, they could just drive down a street recording the bar codes of us all at each address, just like the electricity meter people now do. So if the census collectors drive down the street at say 3 AM thay can record us all at whatever address we sleep at.
    The bar code would of course indicate our religion and the number of kids etc and our tax file number. Easy peasy. It would be updated every time you go to hospital to or centrelink. You know it makes sense

    A microchip would be better. They can store quite a bit of data. 😉

  24. Bemused

    No offence to Andrew Leigh but if I have to choose between experts the former head of ABS sort of beats him in expertise in this particular area. I do not ask my gardener for advice on brain surgery nor my brain surgeon advice on gardening.

    I think your comment wins the twat of the night award so far.

  25. ‘Of course it does. This incidentally has been my complaint about the changes to the census since the get-go. We currently have a fantastic, robust and universal collection of information about our population. Why mess with that when it already serves its purpose?

    Just crazy.’

    Exactly!
    I see the hand of Brandis or someone in this.

  26. DTT:

    This from Bernard Keane’s (I know, I know) article in today’s crikey:

    In 2005, some luckless ABS official thought it would be smart to commission an independent report on the idea of keeping names to establish unique identifiers for census information. Privacy expert Nigel Waters was duly commissioned and duly panned the idea. This briefly deterred the Bureau, but in 2011 it decided to start the process of establishing ongoing tracking of citizens via a 5% sample from the census that year — without the permission or even knowledge of the “participants”, or any independent assessment of the selection process. It then decided to extend that to the entire population — but this time the ABS made sure there was no risk of it being derailed. Rather than conduct another independent assessment, it conducted an internal review that, quelle surprise, determined the idea was a good one. On the basis of its own assessment, it waited until a week before Christmas last year to sneak out an announcement that it would be retaining names and addresses.

    Don’t give them any ideas!!!

  27. Someone in the regular political media finally picks up on something Malcolm Farnsworth pointed out a while back (as far as I can tell no one else has mentioned it at all). The next election will be early, i.e. less than 3 years away, no matter what. Malcolm’s blog post is free. Google Hudson’s article title & click through if you want to read all of that one.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/phillip-hudson/as-2016-election-officially-ends-next-one-may-not-be-too-far/news-story/d393c17fd4ec0061afc0be6b4c8a64df

    As 2016 election officially ends, next one may not be too far
    The Australian 12:00AM August 8, 2016
    Phillip Hudson Bureau Chief Canberra

    Today, Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers will be in Brisbane to hand-deliver the returned election writs to Queensland Governor Paul de Jersey, who is filling in as administrator of the commonwealth while Peter Cosgrove is at the Rio Olympics.

    It is the act that officially ends the July 2 election.

    But even before Cosgrove returns to open the 45th parliament on August 30, it’s becoming clear Malcolm Turnbull will not get the full three-year term he desires.

    Turnbull is yet to reach one year as Prime Minister and having just survived a marathon eight-week winter campaign with a wafer-thin majority of one seat, he won’t want to think about the next election.

    However, despite the PM optimistically talking about “the next three years”, he could be forced by a series of complex reasons to have the next election in just two years.

    Like the election just gone where constitutional hurdles put time limits on options and the government was forced to scramble to bring forward the budget, the next election faces similar issues.

    Arcane rules around Senate elections mean the next election must effectively be held between August 2018 and May 2019. However, fixed dates for the two biggest state elections in NSW and Victoria and other factors will severely limit Turnbull’s choices within that window.

    http://australianpolitics.com/2016/05/07/after-july-2-when-will-the-next-election-be-held.html

    After July 2, When Will The Next Election Be Held?
    May 07, 2016

    The July 2 election will be held just 2 years, 9 months and 25 days since the last election on September 7, 2013.

    But the 45th Parliament we elect on July 2 won’t make it to three years either. In fact, it could easily be shorter than the 44th.

  28. BK

    The solicitor you mention in the RC is Keith Allen (not Martin).

    He has been on the stand since Friday and has been exposed as a liar who has actually brought the attempted covering up of clergy abuse in the Newcastle Anglican Diocese right into the RC.

    Allen has been one of the most influential faceless men in the diocese for 40 years …. he has been chancellor of the synod, vice chancellor, and has headed or participated in all the management committees.

    Commissioner McLellan has taken a very major role himself (unusual in RCs) in questioning Allen, and has been very frustrated and angry at Allen’s lies and very amateurish obfuscation.

    Allen has been specifically and in emphatic detail warned about perjury several times. I expect that he will ultimately be so charged.

    BTW please note that this nest of vipers operated out of Christ Church cathedral. It is very high church anglicanism hence all the revs are “priests”. A friend of mine attends that cathedral weekly. She refers to the service as Mass, with Holy Communion etc etc and the services are pretty well the same as the Catholic Mass. The only difference really is that they don’t recognise Rome.

    Interestingly, the Anglican abuse in the Hunter has been quite different to the Rock Choppers’. Many catholic priests here were offenders and many “execs” failed to notify. Whereas in the Anglos there was organised sourcing of victims, and organised scheming to avoid notifying.

    In fact solicitor Allen has been accused by the Commission of attempting to “organise” the evidence of a number of witnesses who are appearing before the R.C. and their is whistleblower evidence to support this allegation.

    Some of the evidence this week has been heinous. One example …… a publicly named priest (Anglo of course) Stephen Grey from Wyong NSW was convicted in quite recent times of anally raping a 14 year old boy (who needed hospitalisation). Now get this . He received a 3 year good behaviour bond.

    The RC is examining this, because solicitor Allen represented the priest, and the prosecutor at the sentencing hearing was Paul Rosser QC,.

    Paul Rosser QC is a colleague of Allen in the upper management eschelons of the Newcastle diocese. he also has been leader of the synod etc etc

    The Commission is querying the fact that in the sentencing of a Newcastle diocese priest for this crime, both the defence and the prosecution counsel were highly influential leaders in the diocese. The Commission suspects and has queried publicly the possibility that the small sentence is related to these conflict-of-interest ridden relationships.

    Watch this space.

  29. It is only here I encounter loons (greens) and nutjobs.

    They’re everywhere, Bemused. Perhaps you need to get out more!!!

  30. daretotread @ #82 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    Bemused
    No offence to Andrew Leigh but if I have to choose between experts the former head of ABS sort of beats him in expertise in this particular area. I do not ask my gardener for advice on brain surgery nor my brain surgeon advice on gardening.
    I think your comment wins the twat of the night award so far.

    Andrew Leigh has made extensive use of census data for research.
    From that perspective he may well know quite a lot more than some bureaucrat responsible for the mechanics of collecting the data.

    Leigh also rightly blasts the Govt. for their failure to put in the effort to explain and sell the changes. That is where the source of the problem is.

  31. Bemused

    ‘No offence to Andrew Leigh but if I have to choose between experts the former head of ABS sort of beats him in expertise in this particular area. I do not ask my gardener for advice on brain surgery nor my brain surgeon advice on gardening.

    I think your comment wins the twat of the night award so far.’

    Beat me to it. I think it gets the award, but problem is there’s only one contestant.

  32. The current debate over the census is, I think, a symptom of the general distrust of the current government.

    I don’t recall the 2011 census causing this level of controversy, despite Abbott being in full attack mode against Labor at the time.

  33. I’m just grateful to all those people refusing to complete the Census (although I suspect that most will comply). Your country needs the revenue. Please hold out for as long as you can to max out your fine. Refuse to provide the information.

    I am supportive of your sacrifice.

  34. adrian @ #91 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    Bemused
    ‘No offence to Andrew Leigh but if I have to choose between experts the former head of ABS sort of beats him in expertise in this particular area. I do not ask my gardener for advice on brain surgery nor my brain surgeon advice on gardening.
    I think your comment wins the twat of the night award so far.’
    Beat me to it. I think it gets the award, but problem is there’s only one contestant.

    Given the choice between being correct or in the majority, I will take being correct every time. 😀

  35. greensborough growler @ #94 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    I’m just grateful to all those people refusing to complete the Census (although I suspect that most will comply). Your country needs the revenue. Please hold out for as long as you can to max out your fine. Refuse to provide the information.
    I am supportive of your sacrifice.

    I’m with you GG.
    Let the clowns fix the deficit.

  36. confessions @ #62 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Today’s Essential poll pretty much shows opinion evenly split among those who approve of the ABS retaining identifying data in the census vs those disapproving, as per William’s post.

    Thanks. I missed that somehow. Just looked now so we have 45% who approve, 39% who disapprove and 16% who don’t know. Therefore there IS a majority of people who do not have the same level of trust as MBTW and Bemused. Good to know my feel-pinion is on track on this one. 😛

  37. Dan – Do not know if you are around, but you incorrectly listed my choice for Lib Spill III. I wanted it recorded that it was still to early to tell and that we would need to see some parliamentary sittings. Not 2017 🙂

  38. Fess: “But she specifically questions the link between data linkage and improving indigenous health (dialysis was the eg she used).”

    Her point regarding dialysis is really a very simple one. The problems attendant on the lack of adequate dialysis facilities in remote Australia have been known for decades. They were known when several of my mates in Central Australia died as a result of its absence in the 1970s and 1980s. It was yet again “measured” in the last census. The problem has NEVER been properly addressed, even at the levels well known in the 1980s. Despite ever-increasing recording of the problem , ever increasing information, very little happens! Yes, there are now a handful of mobile dialysis facilities, but half of them are permanently off the road because of funding cuts! As you said yourself “It isn’t necessarily the way in which new knowledge is elucidated, but how that new knowledge is applied, either in policy or service provision, or whatever.” The problem in this particular area is that regardless of ever better recording of the problem, it is never really applied. In such situations lip service to “better recording” simply becomes window-dressing of the “Look, we are doing something. We are measuring the problem better” variety. That is the essential thrust of her argument. Unless , as you say, action follows analysis, then it counts for very little. The added price, for minority groups, is the perceived potential threat of providing information through the census that may be used against them. The consequence is that those who could, perhaps, benefit from the sorts of processes you mention if our Governments were serious about dealing with them, as a result of well honed and all too often justified sensitivities about “official” recording of their existence, are the least likely to provide any real information at all!

    Fess,

Comments Page 2 of 72
1 2 3 72

Leave a Reply

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