Too soft or too tough on asylum seekers

Nov 8, 2016

Q. Do you think the Federal Liberal/National Government is too tough or too soft on asylum seekers or is it taking the right approach?

  Total   Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens Vote other   Oct  2010 Jul 2012 Jan 2014 Jul 2014 Apr 2015 Nov 2015 Aug 2016
Too tough 23%   37% 9% 54% 13%   7% 12% 22% 27% 22% 25% 21%
Too soft 24%   23% 22% 14% 43%   63% 60% 25% 18% 27% 29% 29%
Taking the right approach 37%   28% 59% 19% 34%   18% 11% 35% 36% 34% 31% 31%
Don’t know 15%   12% 10% 14% 10%   12% 17% 18% 18% 17% 15% 19%

24% (down 5% since August) think the Government is too soft on asylum seekers, 23% (up 2%) think they are too tough and 37% (up 6%) think they are taking the right approach.

Those most likely to think they are taking the right approach were Liberal/National voters (59%) and aged 65+ (48%).

Those most likely to think they are too tough were Greens voters (54%), Labor voters (37%) and aged 18-24 (34%).

Legislation on asylum seekers

Nov 8, 2016

Q. The Federal Government has proposed introducing legislation to ban asylum seekers who arrive by boat from ever being allowed into Australia. This legislation would apply to any adult who had arrived by boat since July 2013, and would exclude them from ever being granted a visa (including tourist or spousal visas). Do you approve or disapprove of this legislation?

  Total   Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens Vote other
Total approve 56%   52% 76% 24% 64%
Total disapprove 29%   38% 14% 57% 25%
Strongly approve 31%   28% 42% 5% 46%
Approve 25%   24% 34% 19% 18%
Disapprove 16%   18% 9% 21% 18%
Strongly disapprove 13%   20% 5% 36% 7%
Not sure 15%   11% 10% 18% 12%

56% approve of legislation to ban asylum seekers who arrive by boat from ever being allowed into Australia and 29% disapprove. 57% of Greens voters disapprove while a majority of all other voter groups approve. Apart from those aged 18-24 (43% disapprove) – all demographic groups were more likely approve of the legislation.

US Presidential election

Nov 8, 2016

Q. If you had a vote in the US Presidential election, would you vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

  Total   Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens Vote other   Jun 2016
Hillary Clinton 59%   72% 54% 74% 43%   71%
Donald Trump 19%   14% 27% 9% 29%   15%
Don’t know 22%   14% 19% 17% 27%   14%

If they had a vote, 59% would vote for Hillary Clinton for US President and 19% would vote for Donald Trump. This represents a shift away from Hillary Clinton since this question was asked in June.

Men favoured Hillary Clinton 51% to 28% and women by 68% to 10%.

All voter groups would strongly vote for Hillary Clinton.

A question asked in October 2012 about which candidate was most preferred resulted in Barack Obama 63%, Mitt Romney 9%, no difference 17% and don’t know 11%.

Clinton and Trump

Nov 8, 2016

Q. Regardless of who you would vote for, do you think a Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump presidency would be better for each of the following?

  Hillary Clinton Donald Trump Makes no difference Not sure
Australia’s relationship with the US 54% 10% 23% 13%
Global security 49% 15% 22% 15%
The global economy 48% 14% 24% 14%
Addressing climate change 44% 9% 32% 15%
The Australian economy 40% 11% 32% 17%
Australian regional security 39% 12% 33% 16%
Preventing terrorist attacks in Australia 33% 15% 38% 14%

There was strong agreement that Hillary Clinton would be better than Donald Trump for Australia’s relationship with the US (54% Clinton, 10% Trump), global security (49%/15%) and the global economy (48%/14%).

They were most likely to think it would make no difference to preventing terrorist attacks in Australia. However, on each issue, Hillary Clinton was thought to be substantially better than Donald Trump.

Australia compared to United States

Nov 8, 2016

Q. How do you think Australia compares to the United States on the following:

  Total better in Australia Total better in USA   A lot better in Australia A little better in Australia About the same A little better in the USA A lot better in the USA Don’t know
Access to healthcare 78% 5% 59% 19% 10% 3% 2% 9%
Public safety 76% 3%   48% 28% 13% 2% 1% 8%
Standard of living for ordinary working people 66% 7% 33% 33% 16% 4% 3% 10%
Wages 66% 7%   38% 28% 14% 5% 2% 13%
Work rights 63% 5%   35% 28% 19% 3% 2% 13%
Rights of individuals 56% 9%   27% 29% 25% 7% 2% 10%
Access to jobs 52% 10%   22% 30% 25% 7% 3% 14%
Education standards 52% 12%   28% 24% 24% 8% 4% 12%
Opportunities to succeed in business 38% 19%   17% 21% 29% 13% 6% 14%
International influence 24% 46% 13% 11% 17% 21% 25% 13%

More than half believe things are better in Australia than the US for all items except opportunities to succeed in business (38% Australia/19% USA) and international influence (24% Australia/46% USA).

In particular, respondents believed that access to healthcare (78%), public safety (76%), standard of living (66%) and wages (66%) were better in Australia.

There were no substantial differences across voter and demographic groups.

Influence of United States

Nov 8, 2016

Q. Do you think the influence of the United States in the world is becoming stronger or weaker?

  Total   Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens Vote other
Total stronger 19%   23% 18% 25% 12%
Total weaker 52%   51% 58% 53% 54%
Much stronger 5%   6% 4% 4% 5%
A little stronger 14%   17% 14% 21% 7%
A little weaker 41%   40% 48% 39% 39%
Much weaker 11%   11% 10% 14% 15%
No change 16%   16% 16% 12% 23%
Don’t know 13%   9% 78% 9% 12%

19% think the influence of the United States in the world is becoming stronger and 52% think it is becoming weaker.

Those most likely to think the US influence is becoming stronger were Greens voters (25%) and aged 18-34 (29%)

Federal voting intention

Nov 1, 2016

Q. If a Federal Election was held today to which party will you probably give your first preference vote? If not sure, which party are you currently leaning toward? If don’t know – Well which party are you currently leaning to?

  Total   Last week

25/10/16

2 weeks ago

18/10/16

4 weeks ago

04/10/16

  Election  2 Jul 16
Liberal 36%   36% 34% 36%    
National 2%   3% 3% 3%    
Total Liberal/National 38%   38% 37% 40%   42.0%
Labor 37%   37% 37% 36%   34.7%
Greens 10%   10% 11% 8%   10.2%
Nick Xenophon Team 2%   3% 3% 3%    
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation 6%   6% 5% 6%    
Other/Independent 7%   6% 6% 7%   13.1%
2 party preferred              
Liberal National 48%   48% 47% 49%   50.4%
Labor 52%   52% 53% 51%   49.6%

NB. Sample = 1786 The data in the above tables comprise 2-week averages derived from the first preference/leaning to voting questions. Respondents who select ‘don’t know’ are not included in the results. The two-party preferred estimate is calculated by distributing the votes of the other parties according to their preferences at the 2016 election.

Approval of changes to paid parental leave

Nov 1, 2016

Q. Working women currently receive taxpayer-funded paid parental leave (PPL) of $641 a week (the minimum wage) for up to 18 weeks. The Government has proposed women who can access employer-sponsored PPL schemes will lose all or part of their taxpayer-funded PPL. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?

  Total   Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens Vote other   Males Fem-ales Aged 18-34 Aged 35-55 Aged 55+   May 2015
TOTAL Approve 55%   52% 66% 33% 63%   57% 52% 40% 56% 73%   56%
TOTAL Disapprove 32%   38% 24% 57% 25%   30% 35% 45% 29% 22%   27%
Strongly approve 19% 19% 22% 8% 28% 20% 19% 9% 21% 31% 25%
Approve 35%   33% 44% 25% 35%   37% 33% 31% 35% 42% 31%
Disapprove 19%   22% 15% 23% 14%   19% 18% 24% 18% 13% 14%
Strongly disapprove 14%   16% 9% 34% 11%   11% 17% 21% 11% 9% 13%
Don’t know 13% 10% 10% 10% 12% 13% 13% 16% 14% 7% 18%

Just over half (55%) of Australians approve of the planned changes to paid parental leave. This result has not changed since May 2015.

Lib/Nat voters (66%) were even more likely to approve of the change. Greens voters were far less likely (33%). Males (57%) were only slightly more likely than females (52%) to approve. Older Australians were far more likely than younger Australians to approve of this change; 73% of those aged 55+ compared to 56% of those aged 35-54 and just 40% of those aged 18-34 approve.

Note: May 2015 wording of question was ‘Working women currently receive taxpayer-funded paid parental leave (PPL) of $641 a week (the minimum wage) for up to 18 weeks. In the Federal Budget, the Government has proposed women who can access employer-sponsored PPL schemes will lose all or part of their taxpayerfunded PPL. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?’

Pages:«12345678...374»

Sign up for updates

Receive our weekly Essential Report in your inbox.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.