Essential Research: 51-49 to Labor

A blip back to the Coalition from Essential Research, which also turns in results on climate change, same-sex marriage and foreign investment.

The Essential Research fortnightly rolling average moves back a point to the Coalition this week, with Labor’s lead narrowing to 51-49 from primary votes of Coalition 39% (steady), Labor 36% (down one), Greens 10% (steady) and Nick Xenophon Team 4% (steady). Also featured are occasional questions on issue salience, recording big increases since December 2014 for national security and terrorism and housing affordability, and the best party to handle the various issues, with very little change on the previous such result in June, except that Coalition deficits have narrowed slightly on health and education. A semi-regular question on climate change finds 57% attributing it to human activity, down two points since June, with “normal fluctuation in the earth’s climate” also down two since July to 26%. Support for same-sex marriage is up four points to 62%, while opposition is down one to 27%. Sixty-two per cent oppose public funding of advertising campaigns in the event of a plebiscite, with only 25% in support. Respondents were also asked to state if various types of foreign investment were good or bad for the country, which recorded a neutral result for mining and negative ones for ports, agriculture, infrastructure and real estate.

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.

2,686 comments on “Essential Research: 51-49 to Labor”

Comments Page 1 of 54
1 2 … 54

  1. Try again:

    Don
    #3123 Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 3:19 pm
    Adrian, previous thread:

    Ah, the census. I had an interesting census experience yesterday. A dark coloured van pulled up in my driveway, with a couple of middle aged people in it, who – without getting out of the car or any formalities (like showing ID), beyond simply stating they were from the census, – asked if I had done my census. Wasn’t openly hostile, but clearly not friendly either.

    Always tricky to know how much is one’s own cognitive bias, but frankly it felt a little intimidatory. We know who you are and where you live, type of implication.

    I think you just struck a bad batch. The lady who came to check on us was quite friendly.

    Though maybe the cracks are beginning to show in the lack of response to the census. We don’t have any hard data on that yet.

  3. It always interests me seeing things like 26% of Australians claiming they don’t believe in climate change.

    Lets assume the real number is 6%, which is still likely an overestimate in an educated society.

    That means 20% of people don’t genuinely respond to questions, they just pick whatever answer “is most right wing”. It would be a fair assumption that there are a further 20% of people that do the same on the left wing. That leaves very few people actually answering the questions genuinely.

  7. Australian Aheda Zanetti says controversy in France has sparked interest, particularly from non-Muslim women who want protection from the sun

    Burkini bans in France have boosted sales and interest in the full-body Islamic swimsuit, particularly from non-Muslim women, the Australian credited with creating the design says.

    The burkini has created controversy in France, with bans in 15 towns in the south-east and tension after deadly jihadist attacks.

    But Australian-Lebanese Aheda Zanetti, who claims the trademark on the name burkini and burqini, and created her first swimwear for Muslim women more than a decade ago, said on Tuesday the furore had attracted more publicity for her products.

    “It’s just been so hectic,” she said.

    “I can tell you that online on Sunday, we received 60 orders – all of them non-Muslim,” the 48-year-old from Sydney said. She usually received between 10 and 12 orders on Sundays.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/23/burkini-bans-in-france-have-sales-of-full-body-swimsuit-soaring-says-designer?CMP=share_btn_tw

  8. The Census – whether to protest or to boycott:

    http://cannold.com/articles/article/protesting-oz-census-2016-what-legal-experts-say/

    General advice (with all the usual provisos .. I am not a lawyer etc etc …) is that it is better to protest by not providing name and address than to boycott the census altogether. It is not an offence to omit these items of information. It only becomes an offence if you are directed to provide them by the ABS. Which would be a bit dopey of them, since they have to have this information already to direct you to provide it!

    In any event, there is a reasonable case to be made that the ABS has no right to unilaterally declare name and address to be “statistical information” when they were not so considered in any previous census, and the ex-head of the ABS says they are not.

  10. player one @ #8 Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    The Census – whether to protest or to boycott:

    http://cannold.com/articles/article/protesting-oz-census-2016-what-legal-experts-say/

    General advice (with all the usual provisos .. I am not a lawyer etc etc …) is that it is better to protest by not providing name and address than to boycott the census altogether. It is not an offence to omit these items of information. It only becomes an offence if you are directed to provide them by the ABS. Which would be a bit dopey of them, since they have to have this information already to direct you to provide it!
    In any event, there is a reasonable case to be made that the ABS has no right to unilaterally declare name and address to be “statistical information” when they were not so considered in any previous census, and the ex-head of the ABS says they are not.

    I am going to do both. First boycott and finally the protest option.

  11. 45 minutes in queue for Telstra web chat; one hour of fiddling to resolve my email issues.

    At least I could achieve resolution from O/S without too much stress.

    Telstra worked on this occasion. They did tell me about the impending email migration which would have been good to receive some info about.

  13. I had a visit today from a person from the ABS demanding that I fill in the census. After challenging the woman to show appropriate accreditation I showed her a print out of the screen grab from three Sundays ago when I completed the Census prior to C Tuesday and also the 9 digit code I was given on completion.
    The arrogant woman typed these details into her iPad and then sheepishly announced that yes I had indeed completed the Census then turned on her heels and sulked off.
    B**ch

  14. Lizzie,
    I’ve found an alternative to “tidying my sock drawer”: changing the water in my fish tank.

    I have a lawn that needs mowing. But it’s too cold! As would be the water in the fish tank? Unless they are tropical fish. : )

  17. New research shows a ‘tale of two retirements’
    The wealthiest 30 per cent of retirees have twice the income they need to match what they spend, while the poorest 20 per cent don’t have enough to balance the household budget.

    And retirees living in big cities are likely have expenditure needs nearly twice that of their regional counterparts with a similar income.

    Those were some of the findings in a new report, Expenditure Patterns In Retirement, released by the Australian Centre for Financial Studies (ACFS) on Tuesday.

    The research, which draws on the most recent Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, was commissioned by the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST).

    Read more: http://www.afr.com/personal-finance/superannuation-and-smsfs/new-research-shows-a-tale-of-two-retirements-20160822-gqyq1l#ixzz4I8Nb6UAS

    If you hit paywall, search for this: new-research-shows-a-tale-of-two-retirements

  18. What an amzingly heartwarming story about Albo’s dad. However, I will observe that Albo looks exactly like his mother’s brother in that photo from the Cruise! : )

  20. Nicole –

    I am going to do both. First boycott and finally the protest option.

    I would be a bit careful here. It has been mentioned that the cutoff date for on-line is later than for the return of the paper forms. I have no idea how any potential ‘directive’ from the statistician may be made, or what the obligations are, but I suspect your options become limited at that point.

    So, while there is some flexibility in using the paper form, that flexibility will probably be removed at the time that you may be obliged to complete it.

    I tossed this up for a long time, but I can’t personally risk any significant action against me by the state, so I am going to try to make use of the paper form and fill out those things I’m happy to fill out while still clearly protesting, and then see what happens.

  21. “Information is a weapon” concludes this article.
    Good cause to upgrade outdated security measures from 1905 and 1988 guarding our privacy and information methinks.

    The cyber war that’s breaking out between the US and Russia

    This is a tale of spies, a $US500 million cyber arms heist, accusations of an attempt to manipulate a US presidential election and an increasingly menacing digital war being waged between Russia and the west.

    It begins with a clandestine online group known as The Shadow Brokers. There is no evidence that it existed before last Saturday, when a Twitter account in its name tweeted at a handful of leading global news organisations with an unusual announcement: it was conducting a $500 million auction of cyber weapons.

    In a show of faith, the group put a selection of its wares – a 4000-file, 250MB trove – on public display. Security analysts have been racing to go through the list but it is already clear that at least some of what has been revealed so far is real.

    What is most remarkable, though, is the likely former owner of the Shadow Brokers’ cyber bounty: an outfit known as the Equation Group. Equation is an elite hacking unit of the US National Security Agency. The Shadow Brokers claim that the stolen goods are sophisticated cyber weapons used by the NSA.

    The Shadow Brokers’ motivations are not entirely clear. “If this was someone who was financially motivated, this is not what you would do,” says Orla Cox, director of security response at Symantec, a leading cyber security company. Cyber weapons are typically sold over the dark web, notes Ms Cox, or they are used by hackers who want to remain anonymous. They certainly are not advertised to news outlets. And even the best are not priced in $500m bundles.

    “It’s a false flag. This isn’t about money. It’s a PR exercise,” she says.

    From Russia with love

    According to three cyber security companies that declined to be identified, the Shadow Brokers is mostly likely run by Russian intelligence. “There is no digital smoking gun,” said one analyst.

    But the circumstantial evidence is compelling, analysts say. And the list of other potential nation-state actors with the capability, wherewithal and motive is short.

    “The fact that the Shadow Brokers did not exist before, appeared at this time and are using intelligence that has been saved up until now suggests this is all part of some deliberate, targeted operation, put together for a particular purpose,” says Ewan Lawson, a former cyber warfare officer in the UK’s Joint Forces Command and now senior research fellow at RUSI, the think-tank.

    “That purpose looks like it is to highlight perceived US hypocrisy.” Russia, he says, is the obvious perpetrator.

    Two senior western intelligence officials say their assessment was evolving but similar: the Shadow Brokers’ stunt grew out of Russia’s desire to strike back at the US following accusations that Russian intelligence was behind the hack into the Democratic National Committee’s servers. That intrusion, and the subsequent leak of embarrassing emails, has been interpreted by some as an attempt by Russia to interfere with the US presidential election.

    The US has yet to respond officially to that hack, even though they know it to be Russia, according to this narrative.

    Sophisticated signalling

    Now, with a piece of Le Carré-esque public signalling between spymasters, Russia’s Shadow Brokers gambit has made any such response greatly more complex, the officials suggest.

    The US and its allies, of course, are hardly innocent of hacking. Regin, a piece of malware used to crack into telecoms networks, hotels and businesses from Belgium to Saudi Arabia – though mainly Russia – is a tool used by the US and the UK, while the Equation Group is among the most virulent and sophisticated hacking operations around.

    If the warning to Washington was not being telegraphed clearly enough by Moscow, Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower now living in Russia, spelt it out.

    “Circumstantial evidence and conventional wisdom indicates Russian responsibility,” he wrote in a tweet to his 2.3 million followers. “This leak looks like somebody sending a message that an escalation in the attribution game could get messy fast,” he said in another.

    In the US intelligence community the assumption is that, at the very least, Mr Snowden is an unwitting agent of Russian intelligence, if not a tool of it. “It’s all part of the signalling,” says one intelligence official.

    “The Russians have had the initiative in this whole thing starting from even before the DNC break-in,” says Jim Lewis, director of strategic technologies at the CSIS think-tank and a former US state department official. “They have the place of honour when it comes to threats to the US in cyber space right now. They’ve accelerated – they’re much less risk averse and they’re much more aggressive.”

    Attribution problems

    “Attributing” cyber attacks – or identifying their source – is a thorny issue.

    For cyber super powers, insiders say, it is rarely technical limitations that prevent governments from castigating attackers. The problem, an age-old one for spycraft, is that in disclosing what they know, officials may give away how they got it.

    For agencies like the NSA and UK’s GCHQ there is a deeply ingrained culture of secrecy surrounding their cyber surveillance work that stretches back to the origins of signals intelligence during the second world war. US intelligence knew very quickly that the Chinese were behind the hack of the Office of Personnel Management, announced in June last year, which targeted the records of millions of Americans. But it took time to decide what the appropriate response should be and what kind of effect they wanted from it.

    Outside the inner circles of the spy world, there is a growing sense that more public attribution is needed to try and put the brakes on a cyber cold war that is spiralling out of control.

    “Up to now there has been a degree of approaching cyber defence one day at a time,” says RUSI’s Mr Lawson. “But now it’s reached a momentum where people are starting to say we need to start calling people out, making more of an issue about these attacks, because otherwise, how are we ever going to establish any sort of global norms about it.”

    Publicly identifying attackers can be powerful. Chinese activity against US companies decreased markedly after US authorities publicly indicted five senior Chinese military officials last year, proving to Beijing that they knew exactly what its hackers were up to – and would respond even more harshly if they continued. But the power of attribution also depends on the adversary. Unlike China, Russia does not depend economically on the US.

    The Kremlin’s hackers are also far stealthier. A particular trend in Russia’s hacking operations in the past 18 months, says a senior British cyber security official, has been towards such “false flagging”, where attacks are hidden behind proxies. The official points to an attack on the French broadcaster TV5Monde in April last year. The website was defaced with pro-Isis imagery, but it was the Russians who were responsible, he says.

    Russia has become much more aggressive in blurring other boundaries too: their cyber operations do not just exfiltrate information, they also sometimes weaponise it. Outright acts of destruction are on the table, too, as was the case when Russia took down the Ukrainian power grid in January.

    If the tools are new, the techniques may not be. Philip Agee, a former CIA agent, sprang to prominence in the 1970s for publishing a series of salacious books and pamphlets claiming to expose the activities and agents of his former paymasters. He said he was a whistleblower and became a feted figure of the left in the west.

    But in reality he was carefully directed by the KGB, the Soviet spy agency. Under the Russians’ guidance, his output blended genuine US intelligence leaks with outright disinformation concocted by Moscow to suit its own ends. Hundreds of CIA agents were exposed by his activities.

    The KGB’s use of Agee was both an act of disruption and one of manipulation. It boxed in the CIA and affected their decision-making. Moscow ensured genuine agents’ names were publicised at times to suit their ends.

    The Shadow Brokers may be the same trick adapted to the 21st century.

    Both are textbook examples of what Soviet strategists called reflexive control – a concept that has become resurgent in Russian military planning today. Reflexive control is the practice of shaping an adversary’s perceptions. A state might convince an opponent not to retaliate for interfering in an election, for example, by raising the possibility of releasing information about its own tactics.

    “These are old tactics,” says CSIS’ Mr Lewis. “The Russians have always been better at this kind of thing than us. But now, they’re just able to wield them so much more effectively. They have taken tremendous advantage of the internet. Information is a weapon.”

    Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/special-reports/cyber-security/the-cyber-war-thats-breaking-out-between-the-us-and-russia-20160821-gqxnm3#ixzz4I8OR2SBt
    or search for: cyber-security/the-cyber-war-thats-breaking-out-between-the-us-and-russia

  24. New research shows a ‘tale of two retirements’
    The wealthiest 30 per cent of retirees have twice the income they need to match what they spend, while the poorest 20 per cent don’t have enough to balance the household budget.’

    Figures, with the poor excuse for policy we get in this country.

    Just as well there are some great regional areas!

  26. Re the CFA issue, I am curious as to what head of power under the constition gives the C/wealth the capacity to deal with state based volunteers. It has the power to deal with interstate industrial disputes, that was used from at least 1904. Howard used the corporations power to extend the C/wealth power further.
    As the CFA volunteers are not employees there is no industrial dispute . And I don’t think the CFA would qualify as a corporation. And Fair Work Australia is supposed to deal with employment and industrial issues.
    It is quite a while since I worked in the IR field so maybe I am missing something. Appreciate thoughts of any current lawyers on this point.
    I think Cash used to work as an IR lawyer so she should be across this.
    Would be really great if any proposed legislation is found to be unconstitutional.

  28. Rossco,
    seems to me it will be a clause (in the fairwork act?) that will invalidate the enterprise agreement under certain conditions affecting the volunteer force.

  29. jackol @ #20 Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Nicole –

    I am going to do both. First boycott and finally the protest option.

    I would be a bit careful here. It has been mentioned that the cutoff date for on-line is later than for the return of the paper forms. I have no idea how any potential ‘directive’ from the statistician may be made, or what the obligations are, but I suspect your options become limited at that point.
    So, while there is some flexibility in using the paper form, that flexibility will probably be removed at the time that you may be obliged to complete it.
    I tossed this up for a long time, but I can’t personally risk any significant action against me by the state, so I am going to try to make use of the paper form and fill out those things I’m happy to fill out while still clearly protesting, and then see what happens.

    Herein lies the problem. Going by how little they seem to care about public sentiment and the way they have been spinning reports on how things are going, I feel obligated to boycott until cut off date. Will they be honest about the amount of people who have not provided names and addresses? I doubt they will now, based upon their current track. I will not say I refuse. I will say I want to but….

    I doubt they will refuse me filling out one after the end date. I just want to increase the non compliance quota by end date. I am willing to take the risk because it is a matter of urgency for me that they fall back on their contingency plans. Contingency plans which should have been their first plan if they were to honour tradition. Contingency plans which involve seeking external advice, public debate and seeking consensus.

    Shame on them for trying to avoid this step. Current legislation is inadequate. I thank you for your concern however. I will consider it some more too.

  30. Lizzie @1.07pm (previous thread)

    Thank you for pointing out the huge amount of personal data that that honeypot called Facebook already has about any of its users.

    I am amazed at the outrageous claim by Player 1 and his team of 3 that this supports their “be very scared of the Census” narrative. It’s like a mum looking out the window at her child who has already dropped and spilled the bottle of milk …. the milk is disappearing down the gutter, and the mum then calls out “be careful not to drop the milk”.

    As to Player 1’s @ 4.08pm non-legal-advice legal advice about what is or is not an offence, and about what is or is not a “reasonable case” in defending one’s actions, it speaks for itself as to his muddled logic.

    And of course it begs the comment that whether or not one’s case is a “reasonable case” is something to be argued in a court.

    We all know that that costs money ….. maybe even more than a potential fine.

    Nevertheless it is always refreshing to see someone put up money for their hard held principles, even if it is (as in the case of Player 1’s non-legal-advice legal advice) someone else’s money that is at risk.

    Humour is never far away on PB.

  31. What a crazy world we live in – http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-23/adelaide-man-charged-dubai-over-facebook-post-released-on-bail/7778100

    Scott Richards was arrested in late July and charged last week with breaking a law in the United Arab Emirates that bans promoting a charity without permission.

    Seriously? In the UAE you can be charged with “promoting a charity without permission ” … ?

    Makes you realize that despite everything the LNP tries to do here, we do still live in a pretty decent country. But it also shows you why it is important to stand up for your rights whenever they are threatened!

  32. Facebook is voluntary and privacy conscious people do not provide much in the way of details at all. In fact many don’t even use their real names. People post what they WANT people to see. They don’t post want they DON’T WANT people to see.

  33. Nicole, I advise you to do your census as soon as you are able. Withhold your name if you so choose (I will be this year – due to the changes).

    If you want to protest, write letters.

    Not that my advice should carry any weight. Its merely 2 bobs worth.

  36. ‘Humour is never far away on PB.’

    Yeah, and you’re a major source of it.
    Team of three? I guess that numeracy aint your strong point.

  37. Psy,
    Team of three?
    Are we a Merry Band?

    Anyways, Lizzie and I and BB (?) were banging on about the census changes many months ago.

  38. Under a new law from July 1 2016 you can be fined up to $160,000AUD (yes 160k) for using a VPN in the UAE…

    They have some unusual and draconian laws.

  39. lord haw haw of arabia @ #38 Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Under a new law from July 1 2016 you can be fined up to $160,000AUD (yes 160k) for using a VPN in the UAE…
    They have some unusual and draconian laws.

    Was it there also that someone got charged because the merely shared a post that was raising funds for charity?

  41. Nicole,
    You might like to read some time….

    https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/#
    What kinds of information do we collect?
    Depending on which Services you use, we collect different kinds of information from or about you.

    Things you do and information you provide.
    We collect the content and other information you provide when you use our Services, including when you sign up for an account, create or share, and message or communicate with others. This can include information in or about the content you provide, such as the location of a photo or the date a file was created. We also collect information about how you use our Services, such as the types of content you view or engage with or the frequency and duration of your activities.

    Things others do and information they provide.
    We also collect content and information that other people provide when they use our Services, including information about you, such as when they share a photo of you, send a message to you, or upload, sync or import your contact information.

    Your networks and connections.
    We collect information about the people and groups you are connected to and how you interact with them, such as the people you communicate with the most or the groups you like to share with. We also collect contact information you provide if you upload, sync or import this information (such as an address book) from a device.

    Information about payments.
    If you use our Services for purchases or financial transactions (like when you buy something on Facebook, make a purchase in a game, or make a donation), we collect information about the purchase or transaction. This includes your payment information, such as your credit or debit card number and other card information, and other account and authentication information, as well as billing, shipping and contact details.

    Device information.
    We collect information from or about the computers, phones, or other devices where you install or access our Services, depending on the permissions you’ve granted. We may associate the information we collect from your different devices, which helps us provide consistent Services across your devices. Here are some examples of the device information we collect:

    Attributes such as the operating system, hardware version, device settings, file and software names and types, battery and signal strength, and device identifiers.
    Device locations, including specific geographic locations, such as through GPS, Bluetooth, or WiFi signals.
    Connection information such as the name of your mobile operator or ISP, browser type, language and time zone, mobile phone number and IP address.

    Information from websites and apps that use our Services.
    We collect information when you visit or use third-party websites and apps that use our Services (like when they offer our Like button or Facebook Log In or use our measurement and advertising services). This includes information about the websites and apps you visit, your use of our Services on those websites and apps, as well as information the developer or publisher of the app or website provides to you or us.

    Information from third-party partners.
    We receive information about you and your activities on and off Facebook from third-party partners, such as information from a partner when we jointly offer services or from an advertiser about your experiences or interactions with them.

    Facebook companies.
    We receive information about you from companies that are owned or operated by Facebook, in accordance with their terms and policies. Learn more about these companies and their privacy policies.

  43. Hey SK, I thought it was a (very) merry band of three promoting the Census as God’s gift to humanity with a rolled gold guarantee from Mal and his, also merry, band of spruikers.

    But I never was much good at maths.

  47. ‘Perhaps you are being let off the hook and Psyclaw is only counting the truly batshit insane?’

    On cue, here comes the usual suspect to raise the bar for insults, as is his (unmerry) wont.

    Just as well nobody here seems to take you seriously old chap.

  49. Under a new law from July 1 2016 you can be fined up to $160,000AUD (yes 160k) for using a VPN in the UAE…

    It’s one of the many reasons why I will NEVER fly Emirates airlines. Plus the way they subjugate their female employees by making non-Muslim women wear a face covering.

  50. Nicole @5.02pm

    “Facebook is voluntary and privacy conscious people do not provide much in the way of details at all. ”

    That would be quite true.

    In my estimation, based on friends and acquaintances who use Facebook, and on the many media references about the matter, the privacy conscious people would comprise about 0.01% of those who use Facebook.

    And as Bakunin has just pointed out to you, the “privacy conscious people” who use Facebook are also being delusional as to the fact that they are not giving too much away.

    There is only one solution for those with your concern …. stay off digital media, period. Go back to the safety of pencil and paper and tree based info sources. You might be safe there for a few weeks or so.

Comments Page 1 of 54
1 2 … 54

Leave a Reply

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