YouGov-Forty Acres: Coalition 34, Labor 32, Greens 12, One Nation 9

A largely unchanged result on voting intention for a poll that records a slight improvement in Pauline Hanson’s personal standing, and growing concern about North Korea.

The latest fortnightly YouGov poll has Labor down a point on the primary vote to 32%, the Coalition steady on 34%, the Greens up two to 12% and One Nation down one to 9%, with the combined result for all others steady on an ample 13%. The respondent-allocated two-party result shifts a point in Labor’s favour to reach 50-50, with the Greens both increasing their primary vote and recorded a somewhat stronger flow of preferences to Labor. The results remain peculiar for the high overall level of minor party and independent voting.

Also featured are a comprehensive seat of leadership ratings: Malcolm Turnbull on 44% approval (down one on six weeks ago) and 48% disapproval (up one); Bill Shorten on 43% (up one) and 46% (down one); Pauline Hanson on 42% (up three) and 50% (down two); Richard Di Natale on 26% (up one) and 39% (up one); Nick Xenophon on 52% (up two) and 28% (up three); Bob Katter on 36% (up three) and 41% (down two); Tony Abbott on 34% (steady) and 57% (up one); and Christopher Pyne on 32% (up one) and 44% (steady). Other findings are that 66% are worried about North Korea, up 12% on eight weeks ago, with 29% not worried, down 11%. Fully 43% would support military action in response to the missile test, with an equal number opposed. Sixty-four per cent would support banning the niqab, with 26% opposed; for the burqa, 67% support and 24% opposition; but for the hijab, 29% support and 61% opposition.

The poll was conducted Thursday to Monday from a sample of 1032.

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.

1,400 comments on “YouGov-Forty Acres: Coalition 34, Labor 32, Greens 12, One Nation 9”

Comments Page 18 of 28
1 … 17 18 19 … 28

  1. I see MB totally ignores the instruction from the ABS about voting for someone else. Also ignores sonar explicitly stated getting permission of the person who’s form is being filled out.

  2. Boris: “This includes the wording of the bill which will likely ascribe a common law civil union to gay marriages to define them from so called traditional marriages.”

    This is definitely not the proposal. The proposal is to define same sex marriages as being fully equivalent to male-female marriages in terms of the Marriage Age.

  3. tanya_plibersek: I’m sorry LGBTI Australians, their families + friends have to go through this. But we’re with you. Together we’ll keep fighting for equality

  6. guytaur: here are the ABS instructions

    “If a person cannot access their survey form (for example, if overseas), or complete their survey form independently, they can authorise another person they trust to assist them with their survey, or to complete the survey form on their behalf.

    In the scenario where someone completes a survey on someone else’s behalf, the ABS expects that the eligible Australian would:
    Specifically authorise that trusted person to open their Postal Survey envelope; and
    Communicate their survey response to that trusted person so this can be accurately marked on the survey form.
    The trusted person would then seal the form in the reply paid envelope and post it back to the ABS.

    A person cannot self-declare themselves to be a trusted person for someone else.

    The ABS will work with relevant organisations and groups to communicate information to increase awareness of this survey and provide instruction on how to participate.”

    I don’t think these cover the scenario that sonar was describing, in which his/her neighbour appears to have said “you can have my form and fill it out however you want”.

  7. You can fill out a neighbour’s survey if they give you permission. Anyone who says otherwise is incorrect.

    The Treasurer issued a direction under paragraph 9(1)(b) of the Census and Statistics Act 1905

    Section 15 of the Census and Statistics Act 1905 states

    15 False or misleading statements or information
    A person commits an offence if:
    (a) the person:
    (i) is required, requested or directed to fill up and supply particulars under subsection 10(2), (3) or (4); or
    (ii) is requested or directed to answer a question under subsection 11(1) or (2); and
    (b) the person makes a statement, either orally or in writing, or provides a document containing information, in connection with the requirement, request or direction; and
    (c) the person knows that the statement or information is false or misleading in a material particular.
    Penalty: 10 penalty units.

    Note that it paragraph 9(1)(b) is not 10(2), (3) or (4), nor is it 11(1) or (2).

    You can lie to the ABS all you like, as long as they are not doing anything under those 5 specific subsections.

  8. guytaur: “If religious celebrants don’t want to marry gay couples don’t get involved in civil ceremonies.”

    This isn’t the issue.

    The issue is the fear among conservative religious communities that someone will go to the AHRC or the courts and seek a ruling that it would be discriminatory, and therefore illegal under one or more pieces of anti-discrimination legislation, for a priest/minister/qazi or whoever to refuse to marry a same sex couple who requests them to do so.

  9. @ MB – please explain why you think some businesses should be able to deny their goods or services to consumers based on their sexuality. You can’t just say “there’s a fear that we won’t be able to discriminate any longer”.

  11. Player One @ #794 Thursday, September 7th, 2017 – 2:12 pm

    I hate to see this as a “win” for Mal, but at least it is good for the rest of us:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-07/santos-to-supply-east-coast-instead-of-overseas/8882752

    One wonders how hard Santos had to be “convinced” given that they will sell the gas here for much more – perhaps as much as double – what they would have sold it for overseas.

    I would have thought P1, that someone who has worked in senior positions throughout their lives, as you have previously claimed you have, would now the answer to that question.

    In life, on occasion, you are faced with difficult choices, it is best to make those choices voluntarily and on your own terms rather than waiting for someone else to make that choice for you and forcing the circumstances of their choice on you.

    In this case, Santos had a choice, behave reasonably with regard to domestic gas sales, or, take a chance on whatever the Parliament may decide on – which would likely be some form of control on gas sales, and then have to live with whatever form of controls the Parliament saw fit to implement. In Santos’s position, it would be a brave choice to take a chance on the outcome of an unpopular L/NP’s negotiations with a populist Senate.

  12. MB

    Its precisely the issue. Three are no cases of Churches being forced to marry LGBTI people.

    Its a civil act. Nothing to do with religion.

  13. If you were a conspiracy theorist, ( which I am not, though I am a fan of the X-Files…lol ) hypotheticaly what is to stop the politicians supporting the NO campaign to cry ” fraud ” when the yes vote is announced as the winner ( I hope ) by claiming that someone from the opposite side of the debate posted in a form from a NO campaigner and put YES instead of NO. It wouldn’t be too hard to get some homophobic nutjob to cry foul and say someone else filled it in but it wasn’t me…?

  14. ChristineMilne: If @LyleShelton has to lie about postal survey and then try to make it about anything other than equality, it’s obvious he has no argument.

  15. @shellbell

    I don’t think in matters of public importance, the commonwealth seeks to recover its costs.

    Thanks for your answer. That is actually good to know, and sounds healthy for democracy.

  16. Well, that rainbow just got a fair bit greyer. (Not blaming the HC for that. They were handed a giant turd, and probably made the only technically correct decision they could.)

    I don’t believe for a second that the bigots will quietly accept even an overwhelming Yes result in good grace. If anything, it will just give them a cause to double down on and play the repressed victim card even harder.

    The most disturbing thing about all this is the precedent it sets for future policy debates and choices, especially those relating to basic rights and freedoms.

    Substitute skin colour or religion or ethnicity or disability or any one of several dozen arbitrary possibilities, for sexuality, and consider how that plays out. The situation with these issues is already toxic and fragile enough, and anybody who thinks that some will not try to do so on these kinds of issues has not been paying attention.

    The base cowardice and bigotry within our parliament is opening a very nasty Pandora’s Box, which is exactly what some of them intended.

  17. MB

    The religious freedom argument is easy to define. IF its illegal to decline a mixed race couple marriage then it should also be illegal to decline a gay couples marriage.

  19. AFP: #BREAKING FM Wang Yi says China would support the UN taking further measures against North Korea following its recent nuclear test

  24. adrian

    As in yes, that I don’t agree with baba’s proposition that

    Shorten and Labor have been playing wedge politics with SSM since last year’s election

  25. In relation to people accusing small migration policy folk (such as myself) of racism:

    From Van Badham in the Guardian

    Hooray! Dick Smith in the news! He’s spent $1m on an ad buy to promote his own very special opinions on population control. That’s an awkward and unpleasant thing to do in itself, but Smith’s newsworthiness did not, alas, remain pinned on quite such lofty heights. Sure, many news outlets did respond to Smith’s campaign. The AFR reports that “prime-time commercial TV news coverage, write-ups in the major papers and taxpayer-funded coverage at both public broadcasters” engaged with the Dick Smith brand of fringe nonsense more regularly found floating about in the gaseous vapours of organised, if euphemistic, racism.

  28. meher baba @ #839 Thursday, September 7th, 2017 – 4:41 pm

    antonbruckner11: “Would the nutjobs in Turnbull’s party care all that much if he did strongly support a yes vote. Is he being totally craven for no reason? Surely he’s got more to lose looking craven than not”

    As I see it, Turnbull will be strongly supporting a Yes vote, but doesn’t want to do any joint campaigning with Shorten.

    I know not many on here will agree with me, but I think Turnbull is justified in refusing to do this. In a few short years, Shorten has gone from opposing SSM, to supporting a plebiscite, to opposing a plebiscite/postal vote, and now to calling for Turnbull to campaign with him. IMO (and again I know that not many on here will agree with me), Shorten and Labor have been playing wedge politics with SSM since last year’s election.

    Whatever it takes.

  29. Guytaur

    You need to be careful using livemap. It is very good in someways but relies on interpretations from many, many people and some are out of whack

    A google search has Reuters reporting China’s comments which seem much more nuanced than live map’s report.

  32. Al Pal

    By far the BEST source of US information is https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

    This site makes efforts to be balanced although it is probably Republican leaning. It seems to alternate articles -one pro Republican/Trump, one Democrat leaning. Naturally it has lots of internecine USA congress rubbish which is a bore but still, you get a feel for what is really happening, rather than the wishful thinking of some.

    Its polling data was much clearer and more useful than Nate silver who made it all too complex.

    Of course if you want to be a touch daring you could visit a radical site such as http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ -AVOID THE COMMENTS

  36. zoomster

    If Dick Smith wants to set the political agenda, he should enter politics.

    He won’t but just loves the publicity he gets by threatening to.

  37. It seems entirely possible that we shall end up with a No vote. This will have no longterm effect if Labor wins the next election, but will drag the nasty arguments on for more months.
    I also agree that if the vote is Yes, the coalition will drag the whole thing out for as long as possible.

    Either way, the plebiscite thingy will not save us from endless arguments.

  38. lizzie @ #887 Thursday, September 7th, 2017 – 6:08 pm

    It seems entirely possible that we shall end up with a No vote. This will have no longterm effect if Labor wins the next election, but will drag the nasty arguments on for more months.
    I also agree that if the vote is Yes, the coalition will drag the whole thing out for as long as possible.

    Either way, the plebiscite thingy will not save us from endless arguments.

    The No Campaign is clearly hoping the ‘referendum effect’, where the don’t care/don’t knows, tend to vote ‘No’ will work in their favour. It will, but I hope it proves insufficient to beat the strong popular support.

  39. The issue is not Dick Smith. The issue is not whether he is white. The issue is not whether he is male. The issue is not whether Badham reckons he is racist. The issue is not whether he should go into politics or not.

    The policy issue is the sustainable level of migration for Australia.

    There are a complex set of nested policy issues here.

    For starters: the 2016 State of the Environment Report makes it patently clear: our current population is unsustainable.

    Adding to our current unsustainability with high levels of migration adds to the unsustainability.

  41. lizzie @ #887 Thursday, September 7th, 2017 – 6:08 pm

    It seems entirely possible that we shall end up with a No vote. This will have no longterm effect if Labor wins the next election, but will drag the nasty arguments on for more months.
    I also agree that if the vote is Yes, the coalition will drag the whole thing out for as long as possible.

    Either way, the plebiscite thingy will not save us from endless arguments.

    No I think a yes is basically done and dusted and it will be passed by Christmas. No need for the hysteria that some are going on with.

  43. Boer

    The issue is sustainability full stop.

    Australia’s immigrants largely come from countries with greater population densities than ours. Arguably, therefore, coming to Australia makes the world population more sustainable.

    Really, of course, it’s just shuffling deckchairs.

    Is there a country in the world with a sustainable human population?

    If the answer is no, then let’s stop worrying about Australia per se and focus on the real problem.

  45. guytaur
    MB

    “The religious freedom argument is easy to define. IF its illegal to decline a mixed race couple marriage then it should also be illegal to decline a gay couples marriage.”

    I cannot see how this is any different to Catholic Priests refusing to marry individuals who are divorced on religious grounds. They have been doing it for years and the sky hasn’t fallen nor has anyone’s religious freedoms been denied. Out of respect for all sides, please don’t let this become a case of forcing people to act contrary to their religions beliefs – especially when there are others available who are prepared to provide the service. To insist that someone who doesn’t agree with same sex marriage perform the ceremony just because of the law, is nothing more than vindictive pettiness and plays right into the hands of those arguing that the legalisation of same sex marriage will result in “denial of religious freedom” .

  47. Meanwhile, in a country far away…

    Bill McKibben‏Verified account @billmckibben · 6h6 hours ago

    1) Irma at 190 mph
    2) Harvey at 54 ” of rain
    3) West ablaze
    4) Record California heat
    5) Donald Trump talking at an oil refinery

  49. zoomster

    The issue is relative footprints of individuals in different states.

    Each additional Australian, for example, emits many times the CO2 and uses many times the resources of most other countries.

    So it is not just a matter of shuffling the deckchairs.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 18 of 28
1 … 17 18 19 … 28