There’s good news for every party in our latest polling, although the situation is still dire for one of them.
To download the full report please click here.
Labor’s first preference vote has been maintained and they retain a strong 2PP position against the Coalition, and even stronger against One Nation.
Angus Taylor is improving his position versus that of Sussan Ley but it is not translating into increased support for the party. Support for One Nation is rising, as are perceptions of their ability to govern.
Between January and July the electorate did not move significantly away from Labor, but the contest on the right changed markedly. Using Newspoll, One Nation’s first-preference vote rose from 22% to 29%, while the Coalition fell from 21% to 17%.
At the same time, however, using our figures, the Coalition’s perceived fitness for government improved substantially after Angus Taylor replaced Sussan Ley. Its net score on deserving government improved from −80% to −65%, while the Coalition leader’s net approval improved from Ley’s −58% to Taylor’s −42%.
Of course, these are abysmally low figures which underlines that the Coalition is still in an existential crisis.
One Nation also continued to acquire governing credibility, improving from −44% to −33%. These figures also are poor, but with a trend in the right direction.
Albanese remained broadly static on personal approval, at −19% in January and −18% in July, but his preferred-prime-minister rating fell from 55% to 50%. Hanson improved both her net approval, from −22% to −15%, and preferred-PM support, from 21% to 24%. Taylor’s 18% preferred-PM result was ten points above Ley’s January figure, while the proportion unsure almost halved, from 16% to 7%.
The central issues are cost of living, housing and the economy. For Coalition and One Nation voters, immigration, spending, energy and the government are the key factors. Greens are driven by climate change as well as inequality, while Labor voters tend more towards housing, services and social stability. So housing appears to be the key issue which concerns most voters and which relates to their other concerns.
Our figures on the budget and tax measures were more encouraging for Labor than the results from the quantitative polls. Most of the quant polls ask whether respondents thought they would be better or worse off from the budget. We ask whether they approve of the budget. This is a better question to ask if trying to measure the political effect of a budget.
If the budget successfully lowers house prices I could be worse off, as a home owner, but approve of the budget because, as a parent, my kids have a better chance of buying their first home. Knowing the answer to whether or not I approve of the budget is therefore more important politically than the question of whether I am better or worse off.
On this measure, 47% disapproved of the budget while 40% approved. This is negative territory, but considerably less hostile than some of the public polling asking whether respondents expected to be personally better or worse off. It should also be noted that 47% is less than 50%. Supporters of the budget cited fairness, inequality, housing and tax reform. For opponents the budget represented a breach of faith because it introduced taxes the government said it wouldn’t introduce, as well as higher spending and higher taxes. They saw the budget as an attack on wealth, aspiration and housing.
The government fared better on the two housing specific taxes. Even though they were the breach of faith opponents cite capital gains changes were approved by 47% and disapproved by 40%, and the negative gearing changes were approved of by 50% and disapproved of by 38%.
Supporters of the changes cluster around fairness, competition from investors for stock, housing access and a level playing field. Conservative opposition clustered around incentives, investment, rental supply, business risk and prices.
This makes support unusually exposed to events. If rents rise or housing supply contracts, opponents gain evidence for their causal argument; if affordability improves without damaging rental supply, the government’s argument is strengthened.
There was even better news for the government on the multicultural front. Monoculturalism has a limited appeal and most of us are multiculturalists of one sort or another. 60% agree that Australia should be a multicultural country versus 29% who disagree. Even 10% of One Nation voters agree with this proposition, while 40% of Coalition voters agree (against 34% that disagree).
This may not be as significant as it appears. What does multiculturalism actually mean to the people that use the word? We asked that question too. On that basis a maximum of 40% or so appear to think that diversity is a primary good, 30% favour diversity, but integrated within a civic and social framework, and 30% believe in assimilation and a common culture.
However there appears to be virtually no support for a racially monochrome society, so the differences are essentially about culture, not about race.
To sum up, Labor remains ahead, but its opponents are gaining credibility: rapidly in One Nation’s case, and from an extraordinarily low base in the Coalition’s. Albanese therefore needs to protect his own standing, while much may turn on whether the government’s housing policies actually deliver lower rents and improved affordability.