ReachTEL: 52-48 to Labor

Little change on voting intention in a ReachTEL poll that also covers Section 44, the burqa, drug testing of welfare recipients, and likelihood of participation in the same-sex marriage survey.

Sky News reports its latest monthly ReachTEL poll has Labor with a 52-48 lead on respondent-allocated preferences, up from 51-49 a month ago. The primary votes provided do not exclude the undecided, the number of which isn’t specified, but the numbers we have to work with for now are Coalition 32% (down one), Labor 34% (steady), Greens 9% (up one) and One Nation 10% (down one). There will have been a further forced response question for the undecided, but the numbers for this have been a bit elusive lately – I will hopefully be able to get hold of them tomorrow, which will then allow me to report definitive primary votes excluding the undecided, and also a two-party preferred result based on previous election preferences, which will be stronger for Labor than the headline result. The poll also records Malcolm Turnbull with a slender 52-48 lead over Bill Shorten as preferred prime minister.

Among the other questions posed were likelihood of participation in the same-sex marriage plebiscite-survey, which recorded results of 79% likely, 10% somewhat likely, 4% somewhat unlikely and 7% very unlikely, with the oldest cohort apparently the least likely to participate. Contrary to YouGov, the poll did not find strong support for those embroiled in the Section 44 saga standing down, with 39% saying they should and 50% saying they should not. A question on whether the burqa should be banned found 44% strong support, 13% support, 12% opposition and 19% strong opposition. For drug testing of welfare recipients, the results were 53% strong support, 15% support, 9% opposition and 11% strong opposition.

The poll was conducted yesterday, presumably from a sample of around 2300 (UPDATE: Make that 2832).

UPDATE: As related by GhostWhoVotes, the primary votes after exclusion of the undecided are Coalition 34.5% (down 2.7%), Labor 36.7% (up 1.6%), Greens 10.3% (up 1.5%) and One Nation 10.4% (down 1.3%). That would actually transfer into a blowout Labor lead of 54.5-45.5, based on 2016 preference flows. However, taken together with the YouGov results noted in the previous post, it does seem respondent-allocated preferences are proving considerably more favourable to the Coalition. This may suggest that a 50-50 split of One Nation preferences, as per the 2016 election, is unduly flattering to Labor, as most of the support One Nation has gained since the election has come from former Coalition voters.

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.

699 comments on “ReachTEL: 52-48 to Labor”

  1. For what it is worth, the procedure for the Senate would be a recount, so why would that not be the same for the HoR?

    You need to flip this around. The procedure for the House would be a by-election, so why not for the Senate — the answers to which are easy enough to discern.

  2. victoria @ #43 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 5:25 pm

    C@t

    So cool. My brother in law loved to dance and he had some real good moves. So appropriate!
    Thanks

    My pleasure. : )

    It just reminded me of something my late husband said to me before he passed away. He said, ” Soon I won’t be around any more. However, what I don’t want when I am gone is for you and the boys to mourn me. You guys will still be alive and have the rest of your lives ahead of you. So I just want you to be happy and get on with it!” : )

  3. Alias,
    They could also Carnavan
    “And did you ever discuss the voting forms that arrived”.
    One theory mentioned Crikey, is the date his Mum applied for citizenship is about the time overseas enrollments were closing for a presidential election. This is one where Berlusconi was running. It is believed they are from the same town in Italy.

  4. I would like to see an instance where a party ends up with soo many disqualified senate candidates that they run out of people on the ticket. Just to see how the HC/AEC deal with it.

  5. I would like to see an instance where a party ends up with soo many disqualified senate candidates that they run out of people on the ticket. Just to see how the HC/AEC deal with it.

    The countback would then just result in someone from another ticket being elected. The political fallout might be significant but the procedure of the AEC remains unchanged.

  6. alias, Ides,

    I think that there should be penalties in the system for everyone concerned, candidate and Party, so we avoid this bullsh!t happening again.

    If you put in jeopardy seats in the Senate and House then all concerned would be appropriately vigilant.

  7. Mr Tuber continues to comment on things outside ‘border security’. Is he creating a profile for himself ahead of a tilt at the leadership?

    Statue renaming is ‘left nonsense’
    The Immigration Minister Peter Dutton
    3:53PMGREG BROWN
    Peter Dutton has attacked a push to remove statues and rename parks as ‘uni-led nonsense at odds with the silent majority’.

  8. I think that there should be penalties in the system for everyone concerned, candidate and Party, so we avoid this bullsh!t happening again.

    Like losing your seat in parliament?

  9. If they did opt for a Senate-style resolution to Barnaby Joyce’s disqualification, Nationals votes would be reallocated to the second preference. The Nationals directed their second preferences to the Christian Democrats, who I think it’s safe to say would end up at the final count against Tony Windsor as a result. I’ve got no idea how that would play out, but I’d say it was strongly possible that the Christian Democrats would end up winning the seat even though only 1.4% of voters consciously gave them their first preference.

  10. And of course JBishop continues the personal attacks on Shorten:

    Shorten ‘reckless, dangerous’
    3:57PMGREG BROWN
    Julie Bishop has continued the government’s attack on Bill Shorten, calling him Labor’s most left-wing leader in 50 years.

  11. Rational leftist

    I dont like how in the HoR somebody could fall foul of s44, renounce their citizenship and contest the byelection and get the seat back

  12. Signing in problems.

    I used to be able to sign in with chrome on the laptop, now I can’t, and safari won’t let me log in.

    Firefox works on the laptop (so far) and safari works on the desktop, but chrome does not work on either.

    And I wish they would get of the Julie Bishop photo and ‘you should be ashamed’ message. This is poor adolescent smart arse non-humour.

  13. The use of precedent in Australian law has changed somewhat in recent years.

    Now any single judge is bound by applicable decisions made by any appeal court made anywhere in Australia.If the deciding court is at the same level, the applicable decision is presumptively binding.

    Creating legal principles anywhere below the High Court is courageous.

    English law still has a role but diminishing. Bill Gummow once said wtte “Why do we have to hear from these dead English judges”.

    There was a fair bit of international law cited in Sykes.

  14. I dont like how in the HoR somebody could fall foul of s44, renounce their citizenship and contest the byelection and get the seat back

    That’s for the voters of that seat to decide. If they don’t like it either, they can always demonstrate that at the ballot box.

    Also, is forbidding somebody disqualified by s44 for running for the seat again, at the subsequent by-election or in future, even constitutional (assuming their disqualification issues have been resolved)?

  15. With the High Court challenge to the postal survey looming, as well as these citizenship cases, I’ve been looking high and low for decent media profiles of the various HC justices, what sort of lawyers they are, whether ‘black letter’ types or not. Also we have a fairly new chief justice, and yet somehow these people seem all but invisible. Compare and contrast with the US Supreme Court where we constantly hear stuff about the justices.

  16. But Shellbell, with the facts varying significantly in almost all these cases, isn’t it possible there is some obscure Canadian case, for example, that closely aligns with the facts of one of these present cases? Wouldn’t that be more than a little persuasive if the local precedent didn’t align with the facts of the present case?

  17. Rational Leftist @ #68 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 6:00 pm

    I dont like how in the HoR somebody could fall foul of s44, renounce their citizenship and contest the byelection and get the seat back

    That’s for the voters of that seat to decide. If they don’t like it either, they can always demonstrate that at the ballot box.

    +1. The voters should be allowed to make that choice if they wish. Having to face the by-election at all is punishment enough for being ineligible.

    And yes, I think the constitution would need to be changed to bar an otherwise eligible candidate from contesting a by-election on account of their past.

  18. Question @ #38 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 5:16 pm

    Gawd, and I struggle with how high the L-NP are in Essential and Newspoll (the most accurate at the last Federal election).

    One thing partisan me likes about Reachtel, is the way they deal with the undecided makes the PPM so close. Hardly a good number for the incumbent. What exactly do they do?

    What they do is they force the respondent to decide between the two. Eventually the respondent either makes a decision or cannot complete the survey and hangs up with all of their data discarded.

    The suggestion is that the “don’t knows” in Newspoll (etc) include a lot of voters who don’t like the PM but just aren’t sure about the LO, and that a lot of these will choose the LO when you force them to.

    ReachTEL have told me that once the respondent has pressed a button for the first question, the proportion of respondents who hang up later is very low, from memory they said below 1%.

  19. Rational leftist

    I agree its up to the voters of that seat. I still think the punishment of a byelection isnt enough in my personal opinion.

    As to barring something from running, that would require constitutional change and i dont see it happening.

  20. Shorten’s main shortcomings are that he is sane, Australian, leads a competent and United Team, has a comprehensive suite of policies, and does not know tow to the Big End of Town and Murdoch.

  21. As reported in Crikey today, no one has proposed pulling down statues.
    Stan Grant, wrote in reflection of the events in the US, we could show some consideration around memorials to Captain Cook, Phillip and Macquarie.

    An example being that Australia was already ‘discovered ‘ with many people living here.

    I think he suggested some additional historical material (i.e a placque or sign), to add to the context.

  22. Even more dodgy a large restaurant chain says no worse off after Penalty Rates gone, but no employees mentioning it:

    @GuardianAus
    ·
    6s
    KFC says workers ‘no worse off’ for not receiving penalty rates

  23. On Kevin’s strawpoll,

    Of those we’re sure will appear before the HC, no Gillespie, I think X is the only one with a chance to beat ineligibility.

    I think he is a chance of being deemed to have taken reasonable steps.

    He went through the process of renouncing both Greek and Cypriot citizenship from his parents and has been caught out with his father’s quirky British citizenship.

  24. Shorten’s main shortcomings are that he is sane, Australian, leads a competent and United Team, has a comprehensive suite of policies, and does not know tow to the Big End of Town and Murdoch.
    _________
    That one hell of a handicap Boerwar!

  25. One of the parties sought a special count in Sykes

    [31. Counsel for the third respondent submits that the Court should order a special count to be taken so that the preference votes on the elimination of the first respondent may be distributed. The decision in In re Wood ((26) [1988] HCA 22; (1988) 167 CLR 145), so it is said, supports this approach. That case decided that the election and return of an unqualified candidate are wholly ineffective to fill a vacant Senate place, that the election is not completed when an unqualified candidate is returned and that the purpose of the poll is to choose preferred candidates. In particular, In re Wood decided that a primary vote for an unqualified candidate does not destroy the voter’s indication of his or her subsequent preferences ((27) ibid, at pp 165-166). Although an indication of a voter’s preference for an unqualified candidate is a nullity and the indication of preference for that candidate cannot be treated as effective, the ballot paper is not informal. It was held that “(t)he vote is valid except to the extent that the want of qualification makes the particular indication of preference a nullity” ((28) ibid, at p 166) and that there is no reason for disregarding the other indications of the voter’s preference ((29) ibid, at pp 165-166). The Court likened the position to that which arises when the candidate dies. Then, pursuant to s.273(27) of the Electoral Act, a vote indicated on the ballot paper for the deceased candidate is counted to the candidate next in the voter’s indicated order of preference and the numbers indicating subsequent preferences are treated as altered accordingly. In these circumstances, the situation in In re Wood was such as to warrant the conclusion that the special count would reflect the voters’ “true legal intent” ((30) ibid). Furthermore, in the light of the group system of voting which applies in Senate elections, it was highly probable, if not virtually certain, that a person who voted for Mr Wood would have voted for another member of his group, had the voter known that Mr Wood was ineligible. The same comment cannot be made in the present case. Here a special count could result in a distortion of the voters’ real intentions because the voters’ preferences were expressed within the framework of a larger field of candidates presented to the voters by reason of the inclusion of the first respondent.
    32. As Mr Rose Q.C. for the Australian Electoral Commission points out, the Electoral Act draws a distinction between House of Representatives and Senate elections in the case of the death of a candidate. Section 180(2) provides that, if a candidate in a House of Representatives election dies between the declaration of the nominations and polling day, the election wholly fails, whereas, in the case of the death of a candidate in a Senate election between those days, s.273(27) provides that the votes should be counted with the preferences adjusted accordingly. The reasons which lie behind the drawing of that distinction have equal application to the drawing of a like distinction between the election to the House of Representatives and to the Senate of candidates who are disqualified under s.44.
    33. Accordingly, we would declare the election void and refuse to order a special count. ]

  26. The prospect that a member could be disqualified under 44(i) and then contest a by-election and be re-elected illustrates the stupidity of the Sykes ruling. In 1901 a person was disqualified as a foreign citizen or as a domestic citizen who’d formed a foreign allegiance. In either case they would be disqualified and unable to contest a by-election. Presently it appears one can be disqualified, reorder one’s status under the laws of other countries and then requalify for election in this country.

    It is a dog’s breakfast.

  27. Don,

    I can’t sign in through the Crikey homepage or the Mesma page but can at the Bludger home page here.

    https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/

    What I do is bookmark that link, launch my browser and go directly to it, sign in at top right which takes you to the Crikey homepage, close that then launch Bludger again through the above bookmark and hey presto I’m logged in. Big pain in the arse but works. Using safari though.

  28. shellbell,

    Thanks for that.

    The only thing that sticks out to me is suggesting there is an equivalence between a candidate dying and one being found ineligible.

    In the case of a candidate dying no one is at fault, while the ineligible candidate is definitely at fault.

  29. Caroline O. @RVAwonk
    ·
    Aug 23
    -White supremacists planned the rally
    -White supremacists attended it
    -White supremacist killed someone
    -White supremacists celebrated it

  30. Sarah Elks‏Verified account
    @sarahelks

    Senator Malcolm Roberts’ barrister concedes he didn’t fill out renunciation form until AFTER election #auspol

Comments are closed.