Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Uncategorized

Apr 6, 2010

Share

This week’s Essential Report comes in with the primaries running 43/39 to Labor (unchanged), washing out into a two party preferred of 54/46 the same way – again, unchanged from last week. The Greens were up 1 to 10 while the broad “Others” were steady on 9 (with rounding errors adding everything up to 101%). This came from a rolling two week sample of 1900, giving us an MoE that maxes out around the 2.2% mark.

Additional questions this week focus on the asylum seekers, house prices, the Australian economy and workplace staffing. These additional questions run of a sample of 1009, giving us an MoE that maxes out around the 3.1% mark.

Do you think the Federal Labor Government is too tough or too soft on asylum seekers or is it taking the right approach?

asylumapril10

On the cross-tabs, we have:

Labor voters were more likely to think the Government is taking the right approach (31%), Coalition voters were more likely to think the Government is being too soft (90%) and Green voters were more likely to think the approach is too tough (24%).

56% of Labor voters and 25% of Green voters think the Government is being too soft on asylum seekers.

18 – 24 year olds were more likely to think the Government is taking the right approach (29%), while people aged 55 years and over were more likely to think the Government is too soft on asylum seekers (76%).

Males were more likely than females to think the Government is being too soft (69% v 62%).

When we asked a similar question in April last year, we found that 55% thought the Government was being too soft on asylum seekers, 26% thought the Government’s approach was about right and 4% thought the Government was too tough.

.

Which party would you trust most to handle the issue of asylum seekers?

asylum2april10On the cross-tabs we have:

Results followed party lines – Labor voters were more likely to trust Labor (46%) and Coalition voters were more likely to trust Liberal (77%).

Green voters were more likely to trust Labor when it comes to handling the issue of asylum seekers (38%).

34% of Labor voters think there is no difference when it comes to which party they trust to handle the issue.

People aged 55 years and over were more likely to trust the Liberal party to handle the issue (49%), while those aged 18 – 24 were more likely to trust Labor (38%).

In November 2009, we asked people which party they think is best to handle the issue of asylum seekers. We found that 23% thought Labor, 27% thought Liberal and 37% thought ‘no difference’ in terms of which party would be best to handle the issue.

.

Thinking about housing prices, which of the following is mainly responsible for the increase in Australian house prices?
And which is the second most responsible?

housing1april10Essential tells us on the cross tabs:

Coalition voters were more likely to think overseas buyers are mainly responsible for the increase in Australian house prices (22%), while Green voters were more likely to think Australian investors are mainly responsible.

People aged 35 – 44 were more likely to think low interest rates are most responsible (17%), people aged 45 – 54 think a shortage of housing is most responsible (40%), while those aged 65 years and over think that overseas buyers are most responsible for the increase in housing prices (26%).

Females were more likely to indicate overseas buyers are mainly responsible (23%), while males were more likely to point to a shortage of housing as mainly responsible for increased house prices (39%).

.

Do you personally want house prices to increase, decrease or stay the same?

housing2april10The cross-tabs tell us:

Coalition voters were more likely to want house prices to increase (36%) while Green voters were more likely to indicate they want house prices to decrease (49%). 37% of Labor voters want house prices to decrease.

People aged 18 – 24 were more likely to want house prices to decrease (56%), those aged 25 – 34 were more likely to want house prices to increase (37%) and those aged 55 years and over were more likely to want prices to stay the same (40%).

.

Over the last 12 months, has the business you work for cut back on staff, increased staff or have staffing levels stayed much the same?

staffing1april10Short cross-tabs inform us that: “There were no substantial differences in terms of public or private workplaces; however people employed in the public sector were slightly more likely than those in the private sector to indicate there has been a cut back on staff in their workplace (29% v 25%).

.

How important are each of the following for Australia to have a strong economy?

econapril10

With the cross-tabs, we have:

Labor voters were more likely to think that increased wages for workers are very important for Australia to have a strong economy (36%).

Coalition voters were more likely to think that a reduction in Government spending (48%), increasing in share prices (23%) and increased company profits (22%) are very important for Australia to have a strong economy.

There were no substantial differences amongst the various demographic groups.

.

Do you think the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is spending too much time on activities not related to his job as Opposition Leader?

abbottsactivities

The cross-tabs tell us:

Labor voters were more likely to think Tony Abbott is spending too much time on activities not related to his job (50%), while Coalition voters were more likely to think he is not spending too much time on activities not related to his job (76%).

People aged 55 years and over were more likely to think Abbott is not spending too much time on activities not related to his job (53%), as were males (49%).

Possum Comitatus — Editor of Pollytics

Possum Comitatus

Editor of Pollytics

Political Commentator and Blogger

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Possum Comitatus

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

23 comments

Leave a comment

23 thoughts on “Essential Report – House Prices Edition

  1. 1934pc

    What I would like to know is, how many are refused entry and sent back, and those that are accepted, how many end up here and what proportion are shipped off to other countries, because we process them does not mean they end up in Australia!.

  2. Aguirre

    Cud Chewer:

    To add to that I’d love to see follow up polling asking people which “solution” they’d prefer, but with a preface clearly explaining the likely outcomes.

    That would be a terrible idea. Not because people shouldn’t know more about the issue, – they clearly should – but because the polling is there to canvass prevailing attitudes, not to direct the way responses “should” go.

    The good thing about polling results like that is that it indicates to the Government (and journalists too, if they’re interested in disseminating information and not just capturing readers) exactly where and to which demographic an information campaign should be targeted.

  3. Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » Some implications of a large temporary population

    […] Temporary and permanent migrants are adding to pressure on housing. As Pollytics blog reports, a third of respondents in the latest Essential Research poll thought that overseas buyers were […]

  4. smeagol

    people like you truthy are so rigid and narrow minded that you unable to think rationaly because your brain is so poisoned by racist zenophobic ideology. it is thus a waste of time guys expecting people like him to be reasonable and compassionate cos they are so lost in their own egotistical self-righteousness and they will manippulate the truth to suit their stereotypical viewpoints so they feel powerful as they demonise the scary “other”. racicsm is always based in fear and ignorance of the other.

  5. Keith is not my real name

    Psephos is right.

    Rudd needs to shut it down, somehow.

  6. TheTruthHurts

    [I just don’t understand the victimisation of these most desperate people. It defies logic, not to mention compassion.]

    Simple really. Most people in Australia, including myself don’t recognise them as “desperate people” but rather economic migrant BS-artists taking the lefts and Australia’s gullibility for granted.

    You’ve never heard me speak out about REAL REFUGEE’s being knocked back(ones decided by Australia, not the other way round), because like most Aussies I support the notion of a fair go.

    What I don’t accept is people jumping the queue after passing through several safe havens, STEALING spots from Real Refugee’s and then acting like complete animals when they get here(like burning down our detention centres, attacking guards, generally acting like turds, etc).

    No one on the left has ever explained to me whats so god damn inhumane about all 13,500 of our humanitarian positions being filled by REFUGEE’s of OUR CHOOSING. The exact same number of people get in, yet the lefties want the least needy and most greedy coming here and getting a priority over those who have done the right thing. Shameful.

  7. Andos

    Thank you, Tolputt.

    I just don’t understand the victimisation of these most desperate people. It defies logic, not to mention compassion.

    I hope you’re right, Mr Wood, and I think Cud Chewer at 13 has a great idea.

  8. B.Tolputt

    “WE should decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come…”

    The thing is we, as a nation, decided that when we signed onto the international treaty in which we said we would accept refugees. In that treaty, we said we would accept any valid refugees regardless of how they got here. The fact you don’t like that decision does not undermine the fact that said decision was made and no-one in the political sphere has, seriously, said we should renege on these treaties. There is alot of talk about how we can wheedle our way around the terms, but nothing about pulling out of them

    Of course, I don’t expect racist xenophobics to let that factoid stop their ranting any more than the gun crime statistics stop the ranting of “right to arms” folks in the US. They have a predetermined “solution” they want implemented and anything showing that there is no “problem” to solve gets ignored.

  9. Peter Wood

    I think that what this poll suggests is that when the asylum seeker issue is framed in ‘tough’ vs ‘soft’ terms, there is not much sympathy on asylum seekers. If the question was framed in a different way, they would get a different answer.

    What if they framed the question as “Do you think the Federal Labor Government is too turgid or too flaccid on asylum seekers or is it taking the right approach?”

  10. Barking

    The Libs are in danger of overplaying hte dog whistle, whilst they may have the issue and the public, they need to be careful that a rejoiner of. “Listen, this isn’t about a huge rise, yes there is a problem and we are going to do something, But no, what the Abbot opposition are doing is really using this human tragedy to score cheap political points. Its really shameful and shows their complete lack of policies in other areas of more immediate concern to Australians, such as hospitals, schools, and housing.”

  11. cud chewer

    To add to that I’d love to see follow up polling asking people which “solution” they’d prefer, but with a preface clearly explaining the likely outcomes.

  12. cud chewer

    Psephos @3, yes there is an underlying element of xenophobia, and it is extreme among a minority, but it is really hard to tell just how deeply ingrained it is in such a large group in an environment where neither political party has the balls to lead public opinion and the press have locked in rigidly behind demonising these people.

    Incidentally I’d love to see Abbott push the issue because despite the supposedly high level of support for “doing something” few people have thought it through. And most would change their opinion if they had thought it through and realised that the only way to deter people from coming is to degrade their lives. There’s no easy or decent alternative.

    Most likely we will see Abbott promising TPVs. But this time I believe they will be exposed for what they are – namely a way to keep people’s lives on hold while they receive basic medical care and are denied the opportunity to earn themselves a living and thus contribute to the country – which if you think about it is creating a big diffuse detention camp out of the whole country without having the expense of walls.

  13. cud chewer

    David Richards @6, you’ve clearly failed to grok the statistics on land release versus demand. Yes, paying people money to buy existing houses is counter productive but subsidies to build new houses is less so. Altogether better though is investment in basic infrastructure that facilitates land release. Remember that underneath that issue is the internecine warfare between dysfunctional state bureaucracies and developers where the buck keeps getting passed over “bigger picture” infrastructure details and this is ultimately a reflection of the starvation of federal funds for infrastructure. The rot really setting in under Howard.

    Add to that idiocies like the baby bonus and high rates of skilled immigration (read, underinvestment in universities) and we have a royal mess. But other factors aside, we just aren’t going to fix the housing crisis unless there literally are more blocks of land and there is a much improved approach to infrastructure (we’re beginning to see this under IA).

  14. TheTruthHurts

    [TheTruthHurts: The reason why it is depressing is because it’s a complete non-issue. ]

    The left say it’s a non-issue, yet they were the ones who made such a big song and dance about Tampa, “children overboard” and the Pacific Solution.

    If it’s such a non-issue why the hell can’t the lefties accept Australians wanting a tough stance on these queue jumpers. I’ll tell you why, because it’s not a non-issue… not for most Australia, and CERTAINLY not for the lefties who scream the loudest about it whenever someone tries to do something about it.

  15. bemused

    Ahhhh few things in life are as reliable as Troofy to enter the fray spewing his xenophobia.
    Reality is that numbers of asylum seekers arriving on boats are a relatively small compared to other means of arrival.
    Australia has also entered into international agreements in relation to asylum seekers and regardless of how they are processed, or what hardships they are subjected to, most end up in Australia accepted as genuine refugees.
    It is pointless banging on about ‘queues’ when they don’t exist.
    Yes, ‘People Smugglers’ are undesirables exploiting the desperate and should be dealt with by legal processes negotiated with our neighbours such as Indonesia.
    But hyperventilating over a relatively small problem and demonising the desperate is not really going to help. A calm rational approach is better all round but obviously less satisfying to the xenophobic or those who seek to exploit their phobias.

  16. Rockstar Philosopher

    TheTruthHurts: The reason why it is depressing is because it’s a complete non-issue. So few immigrants come through that method and the risk posed by those people is minimal. The reason why it is depressing is the only reason it’s an issue is because it’s a political dogwhistle used to play into underlying xenophobia in the country; something we can do without.

  17. TheTruthHurts

    [Those ‘asylum seeker’ responses are depressing.]

    Not depressing my dear friend… reality.

    The left are on a limb and a prayer with their current soft touch policies, and it’s gonna bite come election day.

    Remember we had a mandate on this issue back in 2001 and the left STILL don’t fucking get the message! Australians are sick of these queue jumpers and WE should decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come… not people smugglers, criminals and thugs.

  18. David Richards

    Not only the asylum seeker issue – but most people have got the housing Issue wrong as well – the prime culprits are a combination of the FHOG, low interest rates, negative gearing, capital gains changes made by King Rattus, bank lending practises, and investor and realtor greed and duplicity.

    Supply is a very small part of the issue – the supply was adequate to cope with the demand before King Rattus’ interference in the market place by suddenly increasing the pool of buyers, and thus inflating demand.

    Again, the Australian public fell for the sleight of hand from the Libs by misdirecting the public’s attention towards interewst rates and away from house prices and the reason for the hyperinflated market. Houses are still 3 times overvalued, heading to 4 times actual intrinsic equilibrium value.

    Austral – you desrve everything you get for being morons.

  19. Muskiemp

    Yes Adam, Australians have always been thus.

  20. Muskiemp

    [Those ‘asylum seeker’ responses are depressing.]
    Yes as the Coalition will continue to dog whistle.

  21. Psephos

    But very predictable. People who think the public has changed its mind about this since 2001 are kidding themselves. Australians are opposed to illegal boat arrivals, full stop. This is a dangerous issue for Labor and one that it has to handle with great care. The Lib aren’t getting any traction out of at the moment because they are so hopeless on everything else, but don’t think that they can’t.

  22. Andos

    Those ‘asylum seeker’ responses are depressing.

  23. Tweets that mention Essential Report – House Prices Edition – Pollytics -- Topsy.com

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Pollytics. Pollytics said: Essential Report – House Prices Edition http://is.gd/bgscL […]

Leave a comment