Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor; Newspoll: 50-50 in Bennelong

Labor records an unexpectedly strong showing in a Newspoll from Bennelong, and maintains a big national lead from Essential – although the latter also records a lift in Malcolm Turnbull’s personal ratings.

The Australian has a Newspoll survey of Bennelong ahead of this Saturday’s by-election, and while the sample is a very modest 529, the results area a turn-up: a 50-50 tie on two-party preferred and a 39% tie on the primary vote, with the Greens on 9%, Australian Conservatives on 7%, the Christian Democratic Party on 2% and others on 4%. The two-party total would appear to be based on an allocation of at least 80% of Australian Conservatives and Christian Democratic Party preferences to the Liberals, presumably based on the latter’s preference flow in 2016. By contrast, The Australian reported last week that Liberal internal polling had them with a 54-46 lead.

Courtesy of The Guardian, the latest reading of the Essential Research fortnight rolling average has Labor’s national two-party lead at 54-46, down from 55-45. However, the monthly leadership ratings record a substantial improvement for Malcolm Turnbull, who is up four on approval to 41% and down five on disapproval to 44%, while Bill Shorten is up a point to 36% and down there to 45%. Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister increases from 40-28 to 42-28. Other questions related in The Guardian involve sexual harassment and energy policy. More on this, along with primary vote numbers, when Essential publishes its report later today.

YouGov-Forty Acres: 50-50

The relatively volatile YouGov series for Fifty Acres is at 50-50 this fortnight, after Labor recorded a rare 53-47 lead last time. As usual though, this is based on very strong respondent-allocated preferences to the Coalition. The primary votes look relatively normal this time, with Labor up three on the primary vote to 35%, the Coalition up two to 34%, the Greens up one to 11%, One Nation down three to 8% and the rest down three to 13%. Other questions include a finding that 40% think Malcolm Turnbull should “stand down and let someone else take over”, compared with 39% who say he should remain.

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.

1,497 comments on “Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor; Newspoll: 50-50 in Bennelong”

  1. lizzie @ #1077 Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 – 3:44 pm

    Australia’s national electronic health records system has been changed from an opt-in to an opt-out model. Australians have less than three months (until March 2, 2018) to elect not to be registered in the My Health Record system before their confidential health details are automatically uploaded to it.

    Relatively few Australians know of the scheme’s existence or their right to opt out of it. And most are oblivious to its capacity to erode significantly the confidentiality of their health information. Under the My Health Record system, personal details historically confined to the therapeutic relationship between you and your doctor will be accessible to others.

    While the onus is on us to lodge an “approved form” to elect not to be registered, no such form is available. This is despite the fact that the time for opting out began on December 2, 2017.

    https://theconversation.com/we-have-less-than-three-months-to-opt-out-before-the-my-health-record-system-has-our-details-and-no-one-told-us-89030?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterbutton

    Well I opted in and anyone opting out may well end up wearing some adverse consequences as a result.

    The opt-outers are like anti-vaxers.

  2. So if the Canadians are not going to buy F-35’s and they are not going to buy Super Hornets what are they going to buy?

    French Dassault Rafales ????

    (The options seem very limited.)

  3. Bemused

    There are real security risks. I think they are there now anyway.

    What is needed is a Bill of Rights to protect as mauch as possible the privacy of citizens in this modern world.

    The two worries are honeypot data for ID theft and information available to the dark web through staff access. The latter which is a current worry of course now.

    I am not too worried about government access as long as safeguards are in place as wtih the Tax Office.

  4. JM says:
    Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 4:09 pm
    Somebody (can’t remember who) described it as Mal’s ‘know your place, peasant’ style of leadership.

    It shines out whenever he feels pressure. He can’t help it. He becomes easy to bait.

  5. Canada could spend zip on defence with perfect confidence that:

    1. There is absolutely nothing they could ever do by way of military spending to deter the only power likely to invade them.
    2. The only power likely to invade them would not tolerate an invasion of Canada by a third party.

  6. guytaur @ #1103 Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 – 4:28 pm

    Bemused

    There are real security risks. I think they are there now anyway.

    What is needed is a Bill of Rights to protect as mauch as possible the privacy of citizens in this modern world.

    The two worries are honeypot data for ID theft and information available to the dark web through staff access. The latter which is a current worry of course now.

    I am not too worried about government access as long as safeguards are in place as wtih the Tax Office.

    Yes in a medical emergency your privacy is much more important than your treating doctor having access to your medical history. /sarcasm off

    Exaggerated emphasis on privacy regularly kills people.

  7. I’ve expressed concerns about the creeping ‘big data’ in the past, but I won’t be opting out of electronic health records. There are good reasons for having a central repository for health records, and all I’ve ever asked when the ‘big data’ goons propose some new invasion of privacy is simply to justify the “what’s the positive that outweighs the negative”, and it does seem fairly clear in this case.

    The bastards better look after those records properly is all I demand, and not find ways to link it to everything else for things not directly related to my health, and that they don’t store them off in some privately run (because private is better dontcha know!) commercial cloud service beyond the reach of any accountability measures. Although I know they will anyway.

  8. lizzie:

    Australia’s national electronic health records system has been changed from an opt-in to an opt-out model. Australians have less than three months (until March 2, 2018) to elect not to be registered in the My Health Record system before their confidential health details are automatically uploaded to it.

    The linked article has been removed, oddly.

    Wow. While I’d say the ‘government’ has some gall to try doing this, on the other hand I am not surprised at all.

    Now to find out how to opt out.

  9. Bemused

    Its a balance. An example is Apple having a slower access to health records to innovate bcause of privacy rules. However those very same rules stop insurance companies discriminating and the confidentiality in Australia gives confidence for Aids testing for gay men and for drug users.
    Knowing no harrassment or arrest would happen.

    So the life saving can be on both sides of the equation

  10. Simon Katich @ #1063 Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 – 3:29 pm

    The ABC has John Baron on talking about the Alabamma election. He’s supposed to be the ABC’s ‘expert’ on US politics.

    I think his expertise is self appointed due to some things he does on the side, rather than expertise highly regarded by the ABC.

    Credit should be given to him for the efforts on Planet America. I dont mind mid-strength beer analysis, just that current US politics often needs the best whiskey – straight.

    Like a bit of Hunter S Thompson. Sigh…

  11. bemused:

    Yes in a medical emergency your privacy is much more important than your treating doctor having access to your medical history. /sarcasm off

    Exaggerated emphasis on privacy regularly kills people.

    I really don’t see eHealth records saving lives, to be honest. Let’s say you have a critical medical incident. They’re going to ask you (or your immediate family/whoever you’re with, if anyone) about your medical history, anyway – once they’ve dealt with the acute issue. They’re not going to have time to look up your records on a computer, and read them – that would take much longer than actually asking you/those you are with. Plus, they’re going to want to do their own (current) blood tests/imaging etc. as relevant. That you had a blood test or x-ray months/years ago is not going to be that relevant at the moment of the critical issue. That is, if the info on your eHealth record is accurate or even yours (let’s not forget human error and carelessness).

    Even in the best case scenario, when the relevant info is there and it’s yours – the treating doctor is going to verify it with you/your family anyway.

  12. Mr Newbie @ #1110 Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 – 4:42 pm

    Now to find out how to opt out.

    If you – or anyone here – figures this out, please let us all know!

    After the Census and Centrelink fiascos, the shipping of all our personal tax records to the US, and the sale of all our medicare data on the dark web, there is no way I would trust this incompetent bunch of ratbags with any more confidential information.

  13. Mr Newbie

    The advantage of central records is one copy and if original record right preventing mistakes in future.
    As you say not applicable for Emergency situations.

    Data access too slow

  14. guytaur @ #1111 Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 – 4:42 pm

    Bemused

    Its a balance. An example is Apple having a slower access to health records to innovate bcause of privacy rules. However those very same rules stop insurance companies discriminating and the confidentiality in Australia gives confidence for Aids testing for gay men and for drug users.
    Knowing no harrassment or arrest would happen.

    So the life saving can be on both sides of the equation

    The reference to Apple has me puzzled.
    But apart from that legislation should prevent Insurance Companies from discriminating with a proper tribunal to deal with any complaints. i.e. not one run by the industry.

  15. adrian @ #1113 Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 – 4:46 pm

    Simon Katich @ #1063 Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 – 3:29 pm

    The ABC has John Baron on talking about the Alabamma election. He’s supposed to be the ABC’s ‘expert’ on US politics.

    I think his expertise is self appointed due to some things he does on the side, rather than expertise highly regarded by the ABC.

    Credit should be given to him for the efforts on Planet America. I dont mind mid-strength beer analysis, just that current US politics often needs the best whiskey – straight.

    Like a bit of Hunter S Thompson. Sigh…

    ” rel=”nofollow”>

    I cannot believe this! Adrian seems to share my liking for Dr Hunter S. Thompson.

  16. Apparently the wall to be built by Trump is to be around Dixie rather than South of the Border, down Mexico way. Democrat voters and Northerner are seen as the real threat……………..

  17. Bemused

    I used Apple as an example of a benefit because they are working to modernise health records including using wearables to transfer data to health records like pulse etc.

    As I said the worries as P1 rightly points out are who gets access to the records and how secure they are.

    Thats why I used the Tax Office example they seem to be able to keep data confidential. So far.

  18. bemused:

    The opt-outers are like anti-vaxers.

    Hardly. Anti-vaxers = anti-science; there is no evidence that their claims are true.

    On the other hand, it’s not a stretch to assume that your confidential medical records being centralised and potentially accessible by multiple sources (without your consent) is potentially a serious breach of your privacy. No electronic system is 100% hacker proof. Yes, paper-based records or individual, non-centralised computer records are not immune to potentially being accessed by sources who should not have access to them, either, but it is much more difficult to exploit these than having all of your data online in a central source.

  19. Mr Newbie @ #1114 Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 – 4:48 pm

    bemused:

    Yes in a medical emergency your privacy is much more important than your treating doctor having access to your medical history. /sarcasm off

    Exaggerated emphasis on privacy regularly kills people.

    I really don’t see eHealth records saving lives, to be honest. Let’s say you have a critical medical incident. They’re going to ask you (or your immediate family/whoever you’re with, if anyone) about your medical history, anyway – once they’ve dealt with the acute issue. They’re not going to have time to look up your records on a computer, and read them – that would take much longer than actually asking you/those you are with. Plus, they’re going to want to do their own (current) blood tests/imaging etc. as relevant. That you had a blood test or x-ray months/years ago is not going to be that relevant at the moment of the critical issue.

    A lot of assumptions there.
    If someone is on holidays and has a medical emergency, is on their own and unconscious. What then?
    With a proper e-health system, hospital staff can check their records which could be vital to save their life.

  20. Bemused

    Yes in a medical emergency your privacy is much more important than your treating doctor having access to your medical history. /sarcasm off

    Exaggerated emphasis on privacy regularly kills people.

    +1

    As someone with a lifetime of severe medical problems and a number of continuing problems, I will be greatly relieved when any doctor treating me in an emergency can have ready access to my history.

  21. Mr Newbie @ #1121 Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 – 4:57 pm

    bemused:

    The opt-outers are like anti-vaxers.

    Hardly. Anti-vaxers = anti-science; there is no evidence that their claims are true.

    On the other hand, it’s not a stretch to assume that your confidential medical records being centralised and potentially accessible by multiple sources (without your consent) is potentially a serious breach of your privacy. No electronic system is 100% hacker proof. Yes, paper-based records or individual, non-centralised computer records are not immune to potentially being accessed by sources who should not have access to them, either, but it is much more difficult to exploit these than having all of your data online in a central source.

    The cops keep such databases. Access is logged and any improper access dealt with severely.

  22. ajm @ #1124 Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 – 5:04 pm

    Bemused

    Yes in a medical emergency your privacy is much more important than your treating doctor having access to your medical history. /sarcasm off

    Exaggerated emphasis on privacy regularly kills people.

    +1

    As someone with a lifetime of severe medical problems and a number of continuing problems, I will be greatly relieved when any doctor treating me in an emergency can have ready access to my history.

    A little bit of experience speaking there. And there are many like you or who may become like you. I suspect not too many will be screaming to have their privacy protected.

  23. ABC online seems to have nothing about the Bennelong by-election at the moment. They do however have an article quoting Turnbull raving about Dastyari not having resigned from the Senate yesterday and costing taxpayers $$.

    That’s something no LNP member would ever think of doing???

  24. I’m not too fussed if strangers find out that, for example, I have high blood pressure. Centralised records look like the way to go. Seems low risk, although I can see that there might be certain things some individuals might be concerned about. If there’s an opt-out provision, people with concerns about privacy are covered.

  25. Rex:

    What a stupid thing to do to buy a domain with Keneally’s name and use it to smear her.

    No class. No idea the liberals.

    Would you feel the same if they had bought a Shorten domain to do the same thing?

  26. bemused:

    The cops keep such databases. Access is logged and any improper access dealt with severely.

    They don’t have databases of people’s medical records. Virtually everyone has a medical record. Very few people, by comparison, have a criminal record.

  27. The whole point of the e health record is fast access to accurate data – in a life or death emergency relatives or friends may be so stressed out that the last thing they are able to provide is accurate and comprehensive information.

    This is potentially a life or death matter for me personally. It may not be so at present for others who have been commenting, but I would ask you to reflect that it is highly likely many of you will be in such situations in the future.

    The other aspect is that it enables medical professionals to be able to do their jobs much better in many situations, which I imagine is a matter of great significance to them.

  28. ajm @ #1124 Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 – 5:04 pm

    As someone with a lifetime of severe medical problems and a number of continuing problems, I will be greatly relieved when any doctor treating me in an emergency can have ready access to my history.

    As someone who has had their identity stolen and their police record fraudulently modified, and as a consequence had a loan application refused and lost a job because I supposedly had a “criminal record” (I didn’t find this out till years afterward) I will be greatly relieved when people understand that centralizing everyone’s personal information and making it available to all and sundry with laughably poor (if any!) security is one of the stupidest and most appalling things this government has ever done.

    We will all be paying the price for this ongoing idiocy for decades to come.

  29. Bw

    I’d say a critical issue is that medical records centralised or not are, in my experience, generally poorly maintained and inaccurate.

    I’ve been in and out of hospital (three in the last 12 mths) a number of times in the last couple of years. “Discharge Summary” records generally are woeful.

  30. Luke_FoleyNSW: A @NSWLabor Government will legislate, in our first 100 days, to strengthen the laws against hate speech & the promotion of racist violence

    This will win votes in the State election and Bennelong.

  31. JA will win the seat of bennelong by a landslide according to the latest ALP polling and he will kick KK to the gutter where she belongs and Malcom Turnbull will be PM for another six years

  32. ajm:

    As someone with a lifetime of severe medical problems and a number of continuing problems, I will be greatly relieved when any doctor treating me in an emergency can have ready access to my history.

    I had a stroke while in Emergency 11 years ago, in my 20’s, and can tell you that nobody working there has the time to dash off to read your medical history before they make critical treatment decisions. I’d had blood tests done in the previous week but new bloods were taken, because they need to know what your health is like that moment; not weeks, months, or even days ago. The course of treatment I had was not dependent on prior medical information – I had some tests done in hospital a week prior and they had to get the results (which I hadn’t yet received myself) faxed through from the lab at another hospital. Of course, before all of this, I was asked about my medical history when being triaged on admission – so they’re going to ask you anyway.

    It might only be of benefit if you somehow present/arrive for emergency treatment and are unable to communicate, with no partner/family/etc. present who know your medical history. But even then, they’re going to do their own tests, and they would still need to ascertain your ID. And if you have some critical medical condition, you can wear a medi-alert bracelet or carry a card with you.

Leave a Reply

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