Essential Research: PM favourability and China relationship (open thread)

Another poll finding little change in perceptions of the Prime Minister, despite a deteriorating view of the national direction.

The latest Essential Research survey has its monthly favourability trend ratings for Anthony Albanese which, as distinct from its straightforward approval/disapproval question, asks respondents to rate his performance on a scale of one to ten. This finds 46% giving him from seven to ten, up one on a month ago; 26% from four to six, down two; and 23% from zero to three, up three. On the question of national direction, 44% rate that Australia is on the right track, down two on a month ago and four on two months ago, compared with 36% for the wrong track, up two on a month ago and seven on two months ago.

Other questions relate to Australia’s relationship with China, which 46% expect to be better under the Labor government compared with only 9% for worse. Asked whether they wanted the government to look for opportunities to rebuild relations with China, take a more confrontational approach or maintain the current course, 54% opted for the first (up two from May), 13% the second (down six) and 12% the third (steady). Forty-four per cent think the AUKUS submarine partnership will make Australia more secure compared with 16% for less secure and 39% for about the same.

The poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1042. Note that progressively updated coverage of the Victorian election count continues on the post below.

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.

1,725 comments on “Essential Research: PM favourability and China relationship (open thread)”

Comments Page 32 of 35
1 … 31 32 33 … 35

  1. Rex Douglas says:
    Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:47 pm

    Good to see NSW collapse under pressure to the Vics in the Sheffield Shield.

    Vic supremacy remains intact.
    中华人民共和国
    If you count the last two on the Shield ladder!

    Sand Gropers doing well leading the Shield followed by the Apple Isle and Queensland.

  2. zoomster says:
    Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:49 pm

    Gillard’s position on marriage is bourn out by her life. She says she doesn’t value it herself, and doesn’t really understand why people get married. She hasn’t married, which suggests she doesn’t value it and doesn’t really understand the need for it.

    A perfectly consistent position.
    ________
    Except that 2 years after being PM she supported SSM. Once she no longer needed the deals she had sown up to be PM.

    That’s fairly obvious and not very consistent.

  3. I’ve had a chance to listen to Linda Burney on Insiders. Thank you, iView.

    Right off the bat she reminded me of the gift of 65 thousand years. That is no small thing. But the Voice is not just that.

    The Voice is an absolute and permanent recognition of 250 years of colonisation and damage. In that context, the Voice is a gift given by First Nations to all Australians that will allow us to see those 250 years, and to begin to heal a wrong. And I don’t just mean the wrong done to First Nations peoples, though that is there in large measure, and requires words that I am not qualified to provide. I mean the guilt we carry within, the disquiet that flares when we see grinding broken poverty. That burst of guilt hardens hearts. The Voice is a path to healing that guilt. It will mean that we recognise the right of First Nations to speak and our duty to listen. It may not be easy for some, but it is as simple as saying “I was wrong” and “What do you think?” It is a gift.

    And ultimately, and back to Burney’s initial point, the Voice folds First Nations people into our shared identity, into our constitution. Sixty-five THOUSAND years is an extraordinary heritage, offered as a gift. But first, we need to listen.

  4. Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:45 pm
    Those who know what happened know what happened.

    As journalist Josh Taylor remarked:

    “Gillard’s opposition to same sex marriage became a symbol of her struggles as a leader….she was bound by the deals that got her into the lodge”

    Absolute bullshit.
    Taylor nor any journalists had any knowledge of the attack on Rudd on that night.
    Most of the cabinet were unaware of the goings-on that night.
    Anyone saying otherwise is “full of bullshit”.

  5. nath

    We change. Sometimes we realise that something we don’t value is valued by others.

    It certainly was my experience with SSM – at the time, I was ambivalent about marriage and was playing with policy positions around the abolition of marriage as a state institution – that it was something which could happen under the auspices of a religion but was nothing to do with governments.

    Then I met a guy who was so passionate about wanting to marry his partner that I realised it was valued by some people and it didn’t hurt me in anyway if it happened.

    So I totally get where Gillard was coming from.

    She changed her mind, something we all do – something we should all be able to do – and it’s as simple as that, no conspiracy necessary.

  7. …and I’ve also met lesbians who were life long partners and who didn’t see SSM as anything they were interested in -indeed, were surprised when people approached them for an opinion, because they hadn’t even thought of it as applying to them.

  8. Late Riser @ #1560 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 1:57 pm

    I’ve had a chance to listen to Linda Burney on Insiders. Thank you, iView.

    Right off the bat she reminded me of the gift of 65 thousand years. That is no small thing. But the Voice is not just that.

    The Voice is an absolute and permanent recognition of 250 years of colonisation and damage. In that context, the Voice is a gift given by First Nations to all Australians that will allow us to see those 250 years, and to begin to heal a wrong. And I don’t just mean the wrong done to First Nations peoples, though that is there in large measure, and requires words that I am not qualified to provide. I mean the guilt we carry within, the disquiet that flares when we see grinding broken poverty. That burst of guilt hardens hearts. The Voice is a path to healing that guilt. It will mean that we recognise the right of First Nations to speak and our duty to listen. It may not be easy for some, but it is as simple as saying “I was wrong” and “What do you think?” It is a gift.

    And ultimately, and back to Burney’s initial point, the Voice folds First Nations people into our shared identity, into our constitution. Sixty-five THOUSAND years is an extraordinary heritage, offered as a gift. But first, we need to listen.

    We want the icing (Voice) before we bake the cake (Treaty).

  10. Nath
    “Except that 2 years after being PM she supported SSM. Once she no longer needed the deals she had sown up to be PM.”

    SSM was not discussed that night.
    Bullshit!

  11. …and I repeat: there was no reason for Gillard to make a deal. She didn’t need to. She didn’t want the leadership at that time, did all she could to keep Rudd there at least a little longer, and tried to back out of the whole thing on the night.

    She knew she wasn’t ready.

  12. It’s entirely possible that on the night she made some commitments to get support against Rudd; including policy commitments.

    That said, when you look carefully Julia Gillard was always a fairly conservative politician, right back to her AUS days.

  18. The rumors about the Gillard/Farrell deal were and are pretty well speculated upon. Margaret Simons in her bio on Penny Wong says:

    This was generally thought to be the reason why Gillard opposed same sex marriage – as part of a backroom deal made with Farrell.

    Penny Wong: Passion and Principle.

  22. This is the whole article by Josh Taylor that nath selectively quoted from:

    Labor’s 12-year road to Damascus on same-sex marriage

    With Joe Bullock gone, there are few left within Labor who are opposed to same-sex marriage. But it was not always thus.

    JOSH TAYLORMAR 02, 2016

    Twelve years after Labor declined to block John Howard’s changes to the Marriage Act banning same-sex marriage, there are few remaining in the federal party who oppose marriage equality, after the shock departure of Joe Bullock.

    The year 2004 is a year many in Labor would like to forget. Mark Latham was their leader, and the party supported then-prime minister John Howard’s push to add a clause to the Marriage Act to ban same-sex marriage. Although the Labor Party officially opposed same-sex marriage, Howard was attempting to wedge the party on the issue, and hastily attempted to pass legislation. The first bill was referred to committee in the Senate, but Labor opposed it in parts. Then-attorney-general Philip Ruddock then introduced a second piece of legislation removing Labor’s sticking points to try to get it passed quickly. Labor was all for it. Latham at the time:

    “We have always said that we believe the Marriage Act is an institution for a man and a woman, and we’ve never proposed in the Labor Party to change that. So we will be supporting what really is the formalisation of it — they’re writing from the common law now into the statute law that it’s an institution for a man and a woman.”

    Those who remain opposed to same-sex marriage insinuate that there was unanimous support for Howard’s Marriage Act changes. There wasn’t. Labor’s vote was never officially recorded in the House of Representatives because it was passed on the voices. In the Senate, Labor voted with the government of the day, 38 votes to six, to pass the legislation. The Greens and the Democrats were on the record as opposed.

    The comments of some Labor senators during the debate on the legislation at the time — including Labor’s Jacinta Collins, who still opposes same-sex marriage — echoes the current comments of far-right conservatives like Cory Bernardi:

    “I know that some people probably take too seriously — some would counter-argue far too seriously — events such as the gay Mardi Gras. But, if the homosexual community wants to portray itself in ways other than how homophobes assume it to be, we need some care and attention.

    “That was highlighted in Melbourne recently with what some of the gay literature was doing in relation to one of Melbourne’s high schools and the suggestion that perhaps it was encouraging paedophilia. Care and attention need to be applied on both sides when we are talking about accusations over whether people are homophobic, or whether they just have common, good-sense differences in policy or perspective.”

    At the time Labor pledged to remove discriminatory legislation against same-sex couples, including on superannuation, but the party platform still prevented any policy that would “mimic marriage”. In 2008, the Rudd Labor government made the changes to discriminatory legislation, but the ban on same-sex marriage still remained an issue within the party. The “mimic” line was removed from the party platform, but no wording on advocating same-sex marriage was put in its place. At the time Anthony Albanese, in a line that sums up how those inside Labor worked to change policy on LGBTI rights, said: “You can’t always get what you want.”

    Supporters like Albanese, Tanya Plibersek and Penny Wong, along with Labor’s LGBTI group Rainbow Labor, were working hard internally to change party policy against same-sex marriage. MPs who were believed to be in support of gay marriage were often forced to defend the party’s opposition to it. This lengthy explanation from Wong in 2010 on Q&A to why she was silent on the ban shows the struggle she was dealing with at the time:

    “I accept that you and some other people in the community would like us to have a different position in terms of marriage. That isn’t the position in the party, but what I would say to you is do take a moment to consider what we have tried to do, what we have advocated for and what we have delivered for gay and lesbian Australians.”

    At the 2011 national conference, there was a motion that would have resulted in a complete reversal of the party’s opposition to same-sex marriage, to complete and binding support. In order to avoid undermining her leadership, however, there was a motion put up on behalf of then prime minister Julia Gillard to allow MPs a conscience vote on the matter. Gillard’s opposition to same-sex marriage became a symbol of her struggles as leader — the same ones Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces today: she was bound by the deals that got her into the Lodge.

    Gillard eventually voiced support for gay marriage after she left office. Slowly but surely over the years since the 2011 change in policy, Labor MPs have also begun changing their positions. In his brief return as prime minister, Kevin Rudd was in support, and Labor leader Bill Shorten also stated his support early.

    Rainbow Labor co-convenor Kieran Fitzgerald told Crikey there was “incremental but important progress” on turning the tide on same-sex marriage within Labor. Rainbow Labor spent much of its time convincing MPs, particularly those in marginal electorates with large migrant populations, that a support for marriage equality would not cost them their seats.

    Then in 2014, Joe Bullock happened. In the WA Senate election re-run, sitting senator Louise Pratt was placed second on the ticket behind hard-right SDA member Bullock. He actively campaigned against Pratt on the grounds of her sexuality and what she represented for Labor. Bullock, an anomaly in Labor’s shift on same-sex marriage, used his opening speech to voice his opposition to same-sex marriage.

    At Labor’s national conference last year, Rainbow Labor again pushed to bind party members to vote for same-sex marriage immediately. As Crikey reported at the time, they almost had it locked in, until Shorten at the last minute reached a compromised proposal to only bind members from 2019. Many saw the move as a victory for the right, but it meant that MPs such as Bullock would need to consider their future in the party.

    Bullock said after the 2015 conference he had walked away “shocked, alone, and in deep despond”. Although he will remain a Labor member, he said he could not ask people to vote for a party that would deny a conscience vote on “homosexual marriage”. Bullock retires as one of the few remaining Labor members opposed to same-sex marriage. According to Australians for Marriage Equality there are five Labor MPs (Tony Zappia, Anthony Byrne, Chris Hayes, Michelle Rowland, and Maria Vamvakinou) and six senators (Deborah O’Neill, Chris Ketter, Alex Gallacher, Helen Polley, Stephen Conroy, and Jacinta Collins) who have not declared support for marriage equality, but four of these have indicated privately that they will vote for marriage equality when it comes before Parliament.

    Bullock’s expected replacement, Pat Dodson, is also believed to be in favour of same-sex marriage.

    Shorten and Labor are capitalising on former gay rights hero Turnbull’s recent capitulation to the likes of Bernardi in his party for holding a plebiscite on same-sex marriage, and conducting a review into the Safe Schools Coalition. After Shorten labelled Bernardi a homophobe, Bernardi whinged in the Senate that it was Shorten’s “Mark Latham moment”, when in actuality it was another step away from the Latham legacy.

    Rainbow Labor will march in Mardi Gras this weekend with the Labor leader marching alongside them for the very first time. Labor has also co-signed legislation for marriage equality and promised to introduce legislation for marriage equality if elected this year. The float will be on the theme of Gough Whitlam’s old “It’s Time” slogan.

    https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/03/02/labors-12-year-road-to-damascus-on-same-sex-marriage/

    As you can see, given its correct context, it means something different to what nath was seeking to imply.

  23. I think we often look back at the SSM debate from a 2022 perspective- things were very different in 2004, and 2010 and 2017……
    The SSM debate moved on incredibly quickly, from small minority support to widespread mainstream acceptance and implementation globally in just 20 years.

  24. Rex Douglas says:
    Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:13 pm

    The Greatest Moral Challenge Of Our Time was no laughing matter within the Labor partyroom.
    中华人民共和国
    Especially when The Greens opposed the CPRS

  25. On SSM from the outside looking in.

    The Greens were consistent
    Labor was ambivalent until they understood. Senator Wong has outlined it well.

    Never forget the Howard government over riding territory self determination to get their way. The Labor/Green government advanced this issue onto the agenda in the first place. Argue all you like about the path but Labor was there at the start along with the Greens on a cultural shift recognising equality.

  28. Rex Douglas
    Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:13 pm
    The Greatest Moral Challenge Of Our Time was no laughing matter within the Labor partyroom.

    As was the next election no laughing matter within the Labor ranks.

    Talk about someone “flogging a dead horse”.

    SSM was not an issue on the “night in question”

  30. Late Riser: “heal a wrong”

    That’s it in a nutshell. The wrong was felt by the indigenous people, but it was a wrong against what we are supposed to represent; The rule of law. Our colonial forebears stole this land according to our own laws. The indigenous people don’t even want what they have every right to demand, either. Just the recognition and respect that is their due. In our system of law, you don’t get to keep a stolen thing because you weren’t the person personally responsible for stealing it. Now, we must at least accept that these things happened. No one is even suggesting that laws or ‘ownership’ needs to change. Given the time of these offences, there is no justice in kicking off people from land today than it was when it originally happened. And this is where we are now.

    The voice is the first of three steps, but it’s the most important step, because it provides a coordinated voice for the next two steps after. The people calling for no are saying they don’t even deserve that. The indigenous people of oz are giving us a gift for us all to reconcile our past for evermore, and it will be seen by everyone around the world what we’ve done. It’s hard to lecture other countries on human rights, when by our own laws, we don’t practice them.

  31. Anyway, why are we relitigating Julia’s position wrt SSM, today!?! Yet again we’ve fallen into a trap set by nath. We should be alert to these perpetual attempts to besmirch Labor by this grub and react accordingly, by ignoring it.

  32. Arky @ #1462 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 9:40 am

    The Marriage Equality vote was on a very human subject that had been discussed and considered in the community for a couple of generations. Opinions were mature and probably not changed much during the “campaign” period, and to the extent they were it would be mostly by personal conversations not by the loudspeaker arguments of politicians.

    Unfortunately I don’t think it’s at all comparable to a Voice referendum.

    They’re not remotely comparable. The Voice must be done by referendum as it’s a Constitutional change.

    Marriage-equality was done that way because 1) Abbott was hoping to sink it and saw the postal vote as his best shot at doing so, and 2) Turnbull was either too morally weak or too short on political capital (or both) to toss Abbott’s plan in the bin where it belonged and just pass the relevant legislation through Parliament. In any case, no Constitutional change involved, no costly and time-wasting referendum required. We had one purely due to knuckle-dragging Coalition bastardry.

    Though in any case, the SSM vote returned a result consistent with what published polling had been saying for ages. Passed with overwhelming support. I hope that much at least stays the same with the Voice.

  33. You can’t class marriage equality with that. Moderate liberals managed to push same sex marriage more successfully than their counterparts in the Labor party.

    The moderates were useless as usual, it was actually the hard right who made marriage equality successful when they insisted on a plebiscite. Not that that was there intention though!

  34. Rex Douglas says:
    Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:21 pm

    nath @ #1516 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 12:54 pm

    Throughout the whole history of enacting SSM, only the Greens had a consistent, righteous position throughout.

    You could say that about clean energy policy as well.
    中华人民共和国
    That’s right Rex. The Greens opposition to the CPRS was consistent and will be a mill-stone around their necks forever. Well put Rex.

  36. Rex Douglassays:
    Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:08 pm

    Have no doubt – the fossil fuel internal war within Labor dominated the Rudd/Gillard transition.

    If you had any integrity, you’d back up this assertion with evidence.

  37. So.
    Trump reckons there is no need for a Constitution.
    Sundry Bludgers reckon there is no need for trials.
    Littlproud, amplifying Price, reckons that practical stuff is more important than the Voice.
    The Greens reckon that the Voice is a waste of money.
    Extremists abound.

  38. nath
    SSM is done and dusted. Nobody cares about it anymore and Gillard isn’t PM anymore and she has better reputation than Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison put together.
    How do I know? Look at how all her events are sold out and how much she is respected and admired on the floor of those events and even by her opponents for the way she conducted herself after stopped being PM.
    You may say that happens to previous PMs. But you know that doesn’t happen otherwise Abbott, Morrison would have had lots of events like this.
    Don’t you have any other topic other than bashing Gillard.
    I get Rudd is the most popular PM of all 6 PMs after Howard era but Gillard was best administrator.
    As of today it appears Albanese has learnt his lessons well from RGR years. So get over it.

  39. It’s interesting that nath is lauding the Liberals for prosecuting marriage equality in possibly the most harmful way possibly.

  41. Ven @ #1588 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 2:36 pm

    nath
    SSM is done and dusted. Nobody cares about it anymore and Gillard isn’t PM anymore and she has better reputation than Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison put together.
    How do I know? Look at how all her events are sold out and how much she is respected and admired on the floor of those events and even by her opponents for the way she conducted herself after stopped being PM.
    You may say that happens to previous PMs. But you know that doesn’t happen otherwise Abbott, Morrison would have had lots of events like this.
    Don’t you have any other topic other than bashing Gillard.
    I get Rudd is the most popular PM of all 6 PMs after Howard era but Gillard was best administrator.
    As of today it appears Albanese has learnt his lessons well from RGR years. So get over it.

    +1

  42. Rex Douglassays:
    Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:36 pm

    Fossil fuel stooges abound – and stalk you endlessly in a disturbing fashion.

    Says he of vacuous integrity. 😆

  43. The proposed Indonesian ban on cohabitation outside of marriage is probably not going to go down too well in parts of the countries. It could seriously harm the tourism industry so I can’t see it being popular in Bali or other tourist hotspots.
    Equally in some of the tribal areas, it will clash with the local practices.
    Finally, it won’t go down too well with the young population either, especially the more western focused elements. It will be seen as a move towards Islamisation and likely to drive off outside investment.

  44. BSF

    Five years inside for a root is a bit over the top, IMO.

    You’d have to jail around three quarters of married adults and around three quarters of unmarried adults in Australia.

    Then there is the ever-present risk of recidivism.

  45. Sundry Bludgers reckon there is no need for trials.

    Say what? It’s both possible and valid to be acquitted of criminal wrongdoing while still taken to have done the crime in both civil court and the “court” of public opinion. OJ would be the canonical example, probably.

    I reckon your sundry bludgers are just aware of the nuance that’s created when different contexts have different standards of proof. Makes more sense than the suggestion that nobody can take an adverse opinion of an accused unless/until the criminal burden of proof is satisfied.

    The state can’t do that, particularly with regard to imposing any penalties, loss of liberty, etc.. Everyone else can interpret and act as they reasonably see fit.

  46. This conversation reminded me. Congratulations to Labor Greens Independent and others who voted for Territory rights especially those that don’t believe in euthanasia.

  47. Shorten seems to be managing NDIS responsibility with dignity, compassion, integrity and transparency.
    Shorten is definitely displaying an admirable and responsible skill set with NDIS.

  48. Billy Kaplan @ #1603 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 2:50 pm

    This conversation reminded me. Congratulations to Labor Greens Independent and others who voted for Territory rights especially those that don’t believe in euthanasia.

    As usual, no matter who the leaders are, The Nationals and the Libs are the handbrake on Australia that desperately want to return us the 1950’s.

  49. markjs @ #945 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 10:06 am

    ..I mention this because we all know the robo-debt calculations were almost invariably WRONG..

    The robodebt calculations were ALWAYS WRONG, because they were based on a completely, utterly false premise. That being that a client’s income in any particular, specific 14 day period could be calculated by dividing their annual PAYE income in that financial year by 26. Utter nonsense. A probability of ever being correct approaching zero so closely as to be indistinguishable from it.

Comments Page 32 of 35
1 … 31 32 33 … 35

Leave a Reply

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