Newspoll steady at 53-47 to Labor. Plus UK and French elections


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1655, is completely unchanged on voting intentions since last fortnight’s post-budget Newspoll. Labor leads 53-47, from primary votes of 36% Coalition, 36% Labor, 10% Greens and 9% One Nation.

35% were satisfied with Turnbull’s performance (up 2) and 54% were dissatisfied (up 1), for a net approval of -19. Turnbull’s ratings have risen from a net -29 in early April. According to Kevin Bonham, this is Turnbull’s best net approval since last September, breaking a run of 12 Newspolls with his net approval at or below -20. Shorten’s net approval was -20, up two points.

In my opinion, Turnbull’s gains on approval are because he is moving towards the centre on some policies, such as school funding and the bank levy. However, the electorate trusts Labor more on schools and health. Producing a “Labor-lite” budget has not helped the Coalition, as it surrenders on principles of fiscal rectitude, which are seen as strengths for the Coalition.

56% supported Labor’s position of only raising the Medicare levy for those earning at least $87,000 per year, while 33% supported the Coalition’s position of raising the Medicare levy for taxpayers who already pay the levy. 19% were very worried about a cost blowout for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, 46% were somewhat worried, and 24% not worried.

This Newspoll asked about leader traits, with May 2016 used for comparison. Both leaders fell on every trait, except the negative trait of “arrogant”. Turnbull led by seven points on “decisive and strong” and six points on “likeable”. Shorten led by nine points on “cares for people”, and trailed by 14 on the negative trait of “arrogant”.

Essential at 53-47 to Labor

Since last fortnight, the Coalition has gained a point in Essential. Primary votes are 38% Coalition (up 1), 36% Labor (down 2), 11% Greens (up 1), 5% One Nation (down 1) and 3% Nick Xenophon Team (steady). One Nation has dropped in Essential in the last two months, while holding up in Newspoll. Voting intentions were based on a two-week sample of 1780, with additional questions using just this week’s sample.

By 67-12, voters agreed that asylum seekers should be deported to their country of origin if their claims are unsuccessful. By 53-25, voters thought the government was not too tough on asylum seekers. By 40-32, they thought that asylum seekers who cannot be safely relocated to another country when Manus Island closes should not be brought to Australia.

Most major government decisions were well supported, with the exceptions of privatising Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank and Telstra.

48% thought the bank levy should apply to foreign banks and the big Australian banks, 16% thought it should also apply to small banks, 12% to the big Australian banks only and just 10% thought it should not apply to any bank.

38% thought Catholic schools would not be worse off under the new funding model, and 20% thought they would be worse off. By 52-23, voters would prefer an income tax cut to stronger workplace laws.

French lower house elections: 11 and 18 June

The French lower house is elected for a five-year term (the same as the President) using 577 single-member electorates. Unless one candidate wins an absolute majority in the first round on 11 June, the top two candidates in each seat proceed to the 18 June second round.

Candidates other than the top two can also advance to the second round if they win at least 12.5% of registered voters. That means those who did not vote or spoiled their ballots are counted in the determination. For example, if 50% abstain or spoil their ballots, a 25% threshold of valid votes must be met for candidates other than the top two to proceed to the second round.

The second round uses First Past the Post. As a result, third and sometimes second candidates will often withdraw prior to the second round, to give their broad faction a greater chance of winning, and/or to stop an extremist party like Marine Le Pen’s National Front.

The key question about the lower house elections is whether President Emmanuel Macron’s new party, La République en Marche! (Forward the Republic!) can win a majority. Polling has the REM on about 31%, followed by the conservative Les Républicains on 20%, the far right National Front on 19%, the hard left Unsubmissive France on 14%, and the Greens and Socialists have 10% combined.

If the election results are similar to these polls, the REM will be first or second in the vast majority of seats on 11 June. Whether their main opponent comes from the hard left, centre right or far right, the REM is likely to do well from the votes of excluded candidates, and easily win a majority of the French lower house on 18 June.

UK general election: 8 June

With nine days left until the UK election, polls have diverged. The most Labour-friendly polls (Survation, ORG, YouGov and SurveyMonkey) give the Conservatives 6-8 point leads over Labour. However, the ComRes and ICM polls have the Conservatives 12-14 points ahead. The 10-point Conservative lead in Opinium may be a result of Opinium polling in the two days immediately following the Manchester attack.

Turnout assumptions are the largest cause of the poll divergence. According to UK election analyst Matt Singh, the better polls for Labour use self-reported likelihood to vote among respondents, while ComRes and ICM use historical election turnout patterns to model this election’s turnout. Older people have historically been far more likely to vote than young people.

Turnout assumptions are making a large difference at this election as there is a massive divide between the generations. According to the latest YouGov poll, those aged 18-24 favour Labour by 69-12, while those aged over 65 favour the Conservatives by 66-16.

For Labour to pull off what would be one of the biggest upsets in election history, they need a massive turnout from young people. A five point Conservative lead would probably lead to a hung Parliament, so the more Labour-friendly polls are close to that.

Update Wednesday morning: A new ICM poll has the Conservatives leading by 12 points. However, as noted by UK Polling Report, the lead is only three points before adjustments for historical turnout likelihood among the various demographics.

Some on US right applaud Republican candidate’s assault of journalist

On Friday I wrote that, the day before a by-election, Republican candidate Greg Gianforte assaulted The Guardian’s reporter Ben Jacobs. Gianforte nevertheless won the by-election 50-44, and has been applauded by some on the US right; this attitude is shown by the Tweet and cartoon below.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The ConversationThe donkey represents the Democrats in the US; an elephant represents Republicans.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Coalition fails to get post-budget boost predicted by commentariat


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

After the release of the Federal budget on Tuesday night, much of the political commentariat thought that the budget would be popular, and predicted a lift for the Coalition in the post-budget polls. Graham Richardson in The Australian said the government would “no doubt get a sugar hit from the budget”. The Conversation

All the regular post-budget polls are instead at least 53-47 to Labor, with little change apparent from the pre-budget situation. In Newspoll Labor gained a point, while in Ipsos the Coalition gained two points, leading to different commentary from Fairfax, which sponsors Ipsos, than The Australian, which sponsors Newspoll.

The last Ipsos was 55-45 to Labor in late March; this seemed an outlier at the time. The last Newspoll was 52-48 to Labor three weeks ago, and was probably influenced by the announcements on the citizenship test and 457 visas.

Here is the post-budget poll table. Two separate ReachTEL polls were conducted on 11 May, one for Sky News and one for Channel 7. They are the first public ReachTEL Federal polls since before the 2016 election. Only half of the Essential sample is post-budget, though this week’s additional questions are based on the post-budget sample.

post budget.

The Sky News ReachTEL was reported as 53-47 to Labor, and the Channel 7 ReachTEL as 54-46. However, both these results were based on respondent allocated preferences. To match polls that only give the previous election preferences, I am using Kevin Bonham’s calculated two party vote from the decimal primaries of both ReachTELs. Since the rise of One Nation, ReachTEL’s state polls have leaned to the Coalition, and this lean appears to be happening federally.

While individual budget measures, such as the bank levy and additional Medicare levy, are popular, the budget as a whole gets only a middling rating on a range of measures. Commentary suggesting that the overall budget would be very popular has been shown to be wrong.

While the budget allocated much spending to health and education, voters trust Labor more on these issues. A government that has tried to cut spending for three years, but suddenly has a poll-driven about-face strains credibility. Labor’s fairness criticisms of the termination of the 2% deficit levy for high-income earners, and the now $65 billion for company tax cuts, are likely to be accepted by a large portion of the population.

Kevin Bonham’s poll aggregate is at 52.7% two party preferred to Labor, a gain for Labor of 0.2 points since last fortnight.

Perceptions of this budget

After each budget, Newspoll asks three questions: whether the budget was good or bad for the economy, good or bad for the voter personally, and whether the opposition would have delivered a better budget.

45% thought they would be worse off and 19% better off, for a net of -26. 36% thought the economy would be better with this budget, and 27% worse, for a net of +9. Compared with previous budgets, neither of these scores are very bad nor very good.

Coalition governments do better than Labor ones on whether the opposition would have delivered a better budget. In this Newspoll, by a 47-33 margin, voters thought Labor would not have delivered a better budget. This 14-point margin is about the same as the last two budgets, but better for Labor than any budget in the Howard era, except the 2007 13-point margin, which came shortly before Rudd ousted Howard at the November 2007 election.

In other Newspoll questions, 45% said they would be prepared to see a reduction in taxpayer funded entitlements to pay down debt, while 41% thought otherwise. By 39-36, voters thought this budget was fairer than others under this government. As one of those budgets was the widely hated 2014 budget, this is not saying much. By 71-19, voters thought the banks would not be justified in passing on costs from the bank levy.

In Ipsos, by 45-44 voters approved of the budget, and by 42-39 they thought it was fair; these measure are much better for the government than following the 2014 budget. 50% thought they would be worse off with the budget, while 20% expected to benefit. By 58-37, voters supported increasing national debt to build infrastructure.

The Sky News ReachTEL found that 52% thought their family would be worse off with this budget, with just 11% for better off. 36% thought the government had done a good or very good job explaining its budget, 37% an average job and 27% poor or very poor. 34% of non-home owners thought the budget made it harder to buy a home, 13% easier, and the rest said there was no change.

The Channel 7 ReachTEL found that the budget was rated average by 38%, poor or very poor by 33% and good or very good by 29%.

In Essential, voters approved of the budget by 41-33, though 29% said it made them less confident in the government’s handling of the economy, with 27% for more confident. On both questions, the strongest disagreement with the budget came from Other voters, not Labor and Greens voters.

Explaining why Shorten did not mention punitive measures against the unemployed in his budget reply speech, a crushing 76-14 supported payment reductions for jobseekers who fail to attend appointments, and 69-22 supported a drug trial for jobseekers. The second airport in Sydney was supported by 54-18.

By 51-27, voters agreed with the statement that the budget was more about improving the government’s popularity than the economy. 56% thought higher income earners should bear a greater share of the cost of funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme, while 27% thought applying the Medicare levy for all taxpayers is the right approach. Scott Morrison was favoured over Chris Bowen as preferred Treasurer by 26-22 with 52% undecided.

There was strong support for the bank levy (68-21 in Newspoll, 62-16 in the Sky News ReachTEL, 60-18 in the Channel 7 ReachTEL, 68-29 in Ipsos and 66-19 in Essential). The additional Medicare levy was also well supported (54-36 in Newspoll, 48-34 in the Sky News ReachTEL, 51-28 in the Channel 7 ReachTEL and 49-39 in Essential).

Primary votes, leaders’ ratings and other polling

Primary votes in Newspoll were 36% Coalition (steady), 36% Labor (up 1), 10% Greens (up 1) and 9% One Nation (down 1). 33% (up 1) were satisfied with Turnbull’s performance and 53% (down 4) were dissatisfied, for a net rating of -20, up five points. Shorten’s net rating was -22, down two points.

In Ipsos, primary votes were 37% Coalition (up 4), 35% Labor (up 1) and 13% Greens (downs 3 from an unrealistic 16%). 45% approved of Turnbull’s performance (up 5) and 44% disapproved (down 4), for a net rating of +1, up nine points. Shorten’s net approval increased a sizable 13 points to -5. Turnbull’s ratings in Ipsos have been much better than in other polls. Ipsos skews to the Greens, but less this time than in their first two polls of the new parliamentary term.

The Sky News ReachTEL had primary votes of 37.8% Coalition, 34.2% Labor, 10.3% Greens and 10.2% One Nation. In the Channel 7 ReachTEL, assuming the 9.2% undecided are excluded, primary votes are 37.1% Coalition, 35.0% Labor and 10.8% for both the Greens and One Nation.

Primary votes in Essential were unchanged on last week at 38% Labor, 37% Coalition, 10% Greens, 6% One Nation and 3% Nick Xenophon Team.

In the Channel 7 ReachTEL, both leaders’ ratings tanked from the final survey prior to the 2016 election. Turnbull’s (total good) minus (total poor) score fell 18 points to -24, his record lowest, just ahead of Tony Abbott’s ratings before Abbott was replaced. Shorten’s rating was down 17 points to -21, his lowest since March 2016.

38% preferred Turnbull as Coalition leader, followed by 29% for Julie Bishop, 17% for Abbott, 11% for Peter Dutton and 6% for Scott Morrison. Among Coalition voters, it was 61% Turnbull, 18% Bishop and 14% Abbott.

For preferred Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek had 31% with Shorten and Anthony Albanese tied on 26%. Labor voters had Shorten leading with 40%, Plibersek on 33% and Albanese on 20%. Plibersek was strongly favoured by the Greens, with 51% support from them.

Turnbull led Shorten as better PM by 47-35 in Ipsos and 44-31 in Newspoll, but only 52-48 in the Channel 7 ReachTEL. ReachTEL uses a forced choice question, and this method usually benefits opposition leaders.

ReachTEL’s respondent allocation problem

As noted at the beginning of this article, ReachTEL’s respondent allocated preferences are over a point more favourable to Labor than using the previous election method. It appears that some of this difference is explained by ReachTEL asking National voters which of Labor or Liberal they prefer.

This is a mistake, as in most cases the Nationals are not opposed by a Liberal, and so their preferences are not distributed. In the few cases where National votes were distributed, 22% leaked to Labor at the 2016 election. Applying this rate to the 3.5% National vote in the Sky News ReachTEL would mean that Coalition leakage would increase Labor’s two party vote by 0.8 points; the actual Coalition leakage is worth only about 0.1 points to Labor.

Ipsos also asked for respondent allocated preferences, and had Labor ahead by 53-47 on this measure, the same as when using the previous election method.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Coalition two-party vote slips in post-budget Newspoll


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The Coalition has slipped further behind in Newspoll, trailing Labor 47-53% in two-party terms, despite a pragmatic budget that moved the government onto ALP ground in a bid to win back voters. The Conversation

Labor slightly widened the gap compared with three weeks ago when it led 52-48%. This makes a dozen Newspolls in a row that have seen the government behind the opposition.

The post-budget Fairfax-Ipsos poll also has Labor ahead 53-47%.

The previous Ipsos poll was in late March, when the ALP led 55-45%.

Both polls show majority support for the budget’s tax increases – the new bank tax and the proposed hike in the Medicare levy. The bank tax was backed by 68% in each poll; the Medicare levy rise was supported by 54% in Newspoll and 61% in Ipsos.

In the Ipsos poll, one in two people said they would be worse off from the budget; only one in five believed they would be better off. In Newspoll 45% thought they would be worse off and 19% said they would be better off. In both polls, Coalition voters were more likely than Labor voters to think they would be better off.

In Ipsos people were evenly split on whether they were satisfied with the budget – 44% were and 43% were not, a net plus one. This is better than the response to last year’s budget (minus seven) but not as good as the reception for the 2015 Hockey budget (plus 17).

Ipsos found 42% thought the budget fair, compared with 39% who did not, a net plus three. Last year’s budget rated a net minus six on fairness. Coalition voters were more likely than Labor voters to rate the budget as fair – 63% to 25%.

Newspoll asked whether it was fairer than previous budgets delivered by this government: 39% thought it was, while 36% did not.

Labor’s primary vote in Newspoll, published in The Australian, is up a point to 36%; the Coalition is static on 36%. The Greens rose a point to 10% and One Nation fell a point to 9%. The poll was taken from Thursday to Sunday.

When budgets do not normally bring a bounce for a government – ministers will argue it will take time for positives to show up in the polls – the result will be a disappointment for Malcolm Turnbull, although his personal ratings have improved.

In Newspoll, his net satisfaction went from minus 25 points to minus 20 points in three weeks, while satisfaction with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten declined from minus 20 to minus 22. Turnbull has also widened his lead as better prime minister from nine to 13 points – he is now ahead 44-31%.

In the Ipsos poll, taken Wednesday to Saturday, Labor’s primary vote is 35%, and the Coalition’s is 37%. The Greens are on 13%. Turnbull’s net approval is plus one, up nine points since March; Bill Shorten’s net approval is minus five, up 13 points since March. Turnbull leads Shorten as preferred prime minister 47-35%

The Ipsos poll found the government’s promised A$18.6 billion boost to spending on schools was supported overwhelmingly – by 86%. Some 58% backed increasing national debt to build infrastructure, but 37% opposed.

Treasurer Scott Morrison on Sunday continued his tough language on the big banks, which are furious about the new tax imposed on them.

When it was put to him that he could not stop them hitting customers with it he said: “In the same way that banks have put up interest rates even when there hasn’t been a move in the Reserve Bank cash rate. I mean, banks will find any way they can to charge their customers more.”

He reiterated that the government would pressure the banks through the regulator not to pass on the tax to customers. “But the best thing you can do is if you are unhappy with how a bank is seeking to fleece you – that’s what they would be doing if they pass this on – go to another bank.”

The tax was just six basis points, he said on the ABC. “Reserve Bank cash rates move by 25 basis points at a time and to suggest that this is the end of financial civilisation as we know it is one of the biggest overreaches in a whinge about a tax I’ve ever seen.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Labor to oppose Medicare levy for lower- and middle-income earners


File 20170511 32607 1mpw3vk
Bill Shorten arrives to deliver the budget reply speech.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has said Labor will oppose the budget’s increase in the Medicare levy hitting taxpayers on incomes under A$87,000. The Conversation

And he has flagged a Labor government would reimpose the deficit levy on high-income earners, that automatically expires on June 30. “Labor will not support spending $19.4 billion on the wealthiest 2% of Australians,” he said in his budget reply on Thursday night.

Labor says that a combination of the pared back levy rise and the deficit levy would deliver an extra $4.5 billion over ten years “without putting the burden onto families earning modest incomes”.

The combination would mean that, under Labor’s proposal, those on incomes of more than $180,000 would pay a 49.5% marginal tax rate.

After the opposition hedged its position last week, Shorten has confirmed a Labor government would put an extra $22 billion into schools above the amount the government has pledged, going back to the original ALP plan.

In an extensive attack on key budget measures, Shorten said Labor will oppose the government’s cuts to universities, its proposed increase in student fees, and the change in the repayment threshold that “hits women, Indigenous Australians and low-income earnest the hardest”.

In power, it would reverse the government’s new cuts to TAFE.

Labor would also oppose the budget plan to give a tax break for people saving for their first home. Shorten said this was a “cruel hoax”, a joke and an insult, representing just $565 for each first home.

He said the 0.5% boost in the Medicare levy – imposed to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme and to take effect from mid-2019 – would affect every Australian down to an income of $21,000.

It would mean a worker on $55,000 would pay $275 extra a year, while someone on $80,000 would face an extra $400.

“Labor cannot support making people on modest incomes give up even more of their pay packets,” he said. Labor would only support the levy rise for those in the top two tax brackets.

Shorten said the budget “fails the fairness test” and it “fails the generational test”.

It was a “budget of big government, higher tax and more debt” and “devoid of values altogether”.

He dismissed the government’s measures to protect Medicare, saying that Malcolm Turnbull “only discovers his heart when he feels fear in it”.

The opposition leader was at pains to counter the widespread observation in commentary that this was “a Labor budget”.

He confirmed Labor would not oppose the budget’s tax on big banks, which has sparked a furious reaction from the banking sector.

But it was worried that “the weakness of this government will turn $6 billion tax on the banks into a $6 billion charge on every Australian with a bank account or a mortgage”.

The banks knew they could run over the top of this weak prime minister, he said.

“He’s giving them a levy with one hand, a tax cut with the other and a free pass for bad behaviour. I’ll give them a royal commission.”

He said that “if the banks pass on a single dollar of this tax to Australian families then that should be the end of this treasurer, this prime minister and this government”.

Shorten said that since budget night Labor had identified $1 billion in measures it would not support, including the $170 million set aside for a marriage equality plebiscite to which the Senate has refused to agree.

Earlier, in Question Time, the opposition extracted from the government the fact that the cost of its ten-year corporate tax cut – the first part of which is already legislated – would be $65 billion over the upcoming decade, compared with nearly $50 billion over a decade when announced a year ago.

In his budget reply, Shorten said: “This is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale. It is a threat to Australia’s triple A credit rating – and therefore a threat to every Australian mortgage holder”.

Labor’s plan to close tax loopholes that let big companies shuffle money internationally would deliver $5.4 billion over a decade.

Shorten announced that a Labor government would cap at $3,000 the amount people could deduct for the management of their tax affairs. Although affecting only one in 100 taxpayers, this would save $1.3 billion over the medium term.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann called on Shorten to submit his speech to the Parliamentary Budget Office for costing.

“If Bill Shorten is serious he needs to come clean with the Australian people about how much bigger the deficit would be over the forward estimates period as a result of the announcements that he has made,” Cormann said.

He said Labor’s numbers did not add up and it would put the triple A credit rating at risk.

Social Services Minister Christian Porter said that Labor had not outlined enough to fund the NDIS.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/55eic-6aa7da?from=yiiadmin

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Shorten fights on fairness in budget reply, but will it be enough?


File 20170511 32624 asd2zm
Bill Shorten used his budget-in-reply speech to appeal to middle Australia.
AAP/Mick Tsikas

Natalie Mast, University of Western Australia

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is under real pressure for the first time since the 2016 election, as the government attempts to wedge Labor with a circuit-breaker budget. The Conversation

Shorten used his budget-in-reply speech to appeal to middle Australia, putting forward an argument that Labor is the only party that can be trusted to deliver a fair go. He argued the government’s so-called “Labor-lite budget” is unfair, bringing benefits only to rich.

Since the election, it seems everything – including the polls – has gone Labor’s way. The Turnbull government has been plagued by infighting and its messages have failed to resonate with the electorate.

However, over the last few weeks – starting with changes to 457 visas and the expansion of the Snowy Hydro scheme – the Coalition has begun a new conversation with the electorate.

Shorten’s pitch

The 2017 budget positioned the government as more centrist. It contained several policy positions ordinarily associated with Labor.

The government’s three-word slogan for the budget was “fairness, opportunity and security”. It has tried to position itself as a “doing government”, taking on good debt to invest in infrastructure, funding the NDIS into the future, and adopting measures from the Gonski schools funding plan.

Shorten’s speech was framed around modern class politics. He claimed Labor is the only party that can be trusted to protect low-income workers, and look after the interests of the middle class in terms of Medicare, universities and schools.

Shorten refuted Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s claim that the budget is a fair one:

This prime minister of many words has learned a new one – fairness – and he’s saying it as often as he can. But repetition is no substitute for conviction … This isn’t a Labor budget – and it’s not a fair budget … Fairness isn’t measured by what you say – it’s revealed by what you do.

It is highly unlikely that this budget will be viewed as negatively as the 2014 budget. But Labor needs to convincingly discredit it to the point that the government cannot use it to help restore its standing in the eyes of voters.

Labor will need to attack on two fronts. The first will be scare tactics. Voters will need to be convinced they are unnecessarily worse off under this budget.

Shorten claimed:

There’s nothing fair about making middle-class and working-class Australians pay more, while millionaires and multinationals pay less.

He highlighted higher tax rates for low-income workers, as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, as well as the traditional Liberal threat to Medicare. Shorten also posited schools would be much worse off due to the gap in promised funding between Labor and the government.

The second line of attack will be providing an alternative set of policy options that voters view as more attractive than those put forward by the government.

What is Labor offering voters?

In his speech, Shorten promised a Labor government would remove the Medicare rebate freeze, rather than wait for indexation to begin in July 2020 – thereby reducing the cost of health care. Labor will also restore A$22 billion to the schools sector.

As an alternative to the measures to assist first home buyers through a savings scheme, Shorten said Labor had a plan for affordable housing that would include the construction of 55,000 new homes over three years, and create 25,000 new jobs every year. He also noted Labor’s commitment to developing more public housing.

In what is likely to prove a popular idea, Labor will seek to close the loopholes allowing multinational companies avoiding tax in Australia.

Likewise, in an effort to halt tax avoidance by wealthy individuals, Labor plans to limit the amount an individual can deduct for the management of their tax affairs to A$3,000 per year. Shorten claimed that less than 1% of taxpayers would be affected, and that measure would save the budget A$1.3 billion over the medium term.

Shorten continued to argue that a royal commission into the banking industry is required.

Where does Labor stand on individual budget items?

Labor needs time to review the proposed legislation resulting from the budget in order to determine what it is willing to support. But Shorten outlined Labor’s position on several measures.

  • It supports the additional Medicare levy to fund the NDIS. However, it wants to limit the levy to the top two tax brackets, so that only those earning more than $87,000 per year will be impacted.

  • It supports the bank levy – but simultaneously put pressure on the government, claiming it is responsible for stopping the banks from passing the cost onto customers.

  • It does not support the cuts to universities or the proposed increase in university fees for students.

  • It does not support the plan to allow first home buyers to use up to $30,000 in voluntary superannuation contributions. Shorten described the policy as “microscopic assistance”.

In this game, it’s the message that matters

This is a political budget, and so we should expect in the coming weeks that both parties will attempt to appeal to voters’ base instincts, rather than presenting considered arguments for or against policies.

Thus, the government is focusing on forcing greedy banks to “pay their fair share”, secure in the knowledge that former Queensland premier Anna Bligh, as head of the Australian Bankers’ Association, is unlikely to be able to cut through the bank-bashing mentality of the average Australian voter.

Likewise, Shorten will campaign hard on the natural end of the temporary budget repair levy, which was introduced in the 2014 budget. He is claiming this is a tax cut for the rich at the same time as the government is making everyday Australians pay more tax through a higher Medicare levy.

Interesting times ahead

Shorten is right: this budget is about trust.

The government and the opposition both need to convince average working and middle class voters that their policies will provide Australians with the best outcome. In some ways, this is politics as usual.

But, with the polls leaning to Labor and voters’ faith in the government’s ability to deliver low, the stakes seem higher than normal – especially as voters are presented with two positions not as divergent as they have been in recent years.

Natalie Mast, Associate Director, Business Intelligence & Analytics, University of Western Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Queensland Galaxy: 52-48 to Labor as One Nation slumps


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

A Queensland Galaxy poll has Labor leading by 52-48, a one point gain for Labor since early February. Primary votes are 36% for Labor (up 5), 34% for the Liberal Nationals (up 1), 17% for One Nation (down 6) and 7% for the Greens (down 1). The Conversation

Given the large increase in Labor’s primary vote, the one point gain after preferences is low, probably due to rounding. This poll was conducted Wednesday and Thursday from a sample of 850. The next Queensland election is due by early next year.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s ratings are 47% approve (up 6) and 35% disapprove (down 2), for a net approval of +12, up eight points. Opposition leader Tim Nicholls has a net rating of -18, down six points. Palaszczuk’s performance during Cyclone Debbie and associated floods was rated good or very good by 76%, and poor by just 16%.

Polling and election results from Australia and Europe indicate that support for far right parties has fallen since Donald Trump became US President. One Nation, Geert Wilders’ Party of Freedom and Marine Le Pen all underperformed polls taken a month before the election at the WA election, Dutch election and French election first round respectively. French polling has Macron thumping Le Pen in the runoff, and UK polling has the UK Independence Party (UKIP) slumping into single figures.

It is likely that the far right’s performance is related to Trump, who is very unpopular in the rest of the world. Globally, far right parties are closely associated with Trump, but some far right supporters dislike him, and these are deserting.

Update Monday morning: The Federal component of this Galaxy poll has been released. There is a 50-50 tie in Queensland, a one point gain for Federal Labor since February, and a four point gain since the 2016 election. Federal Queensland primary votes are 35% Coalition (steady since February), 33% Labor (up 4), 15% One Nation (down 3) and 7% Greens (down 1).

Essential at 53-47 to Labor, and more Newspoll questions

In last week’s Essential, Labor led by 53-47. Primary votes were 37% Coalition, 36% Labor, 10% Greens, 8% One Nation and 3% Nick Xenophon Team. Voting intentions are based on two weeks’ fieldwork with a sample of 1810, while other questions are based on one week’s sample.

39% thought the changes to 457 visas are about right, 28% thought they do not go far enough in regulating foreign workers, and 16% thought they go too far. 59% approved of allowing workers on visas to apply for permanent residency, and 23% disapproved. 78% agreed that people applying for permanent residency should be put on a probationary visa before being granted citizenship, and just 10% disagreed.

40% (up 3 since August 2016) thought Tony Abbott should resign from Parliament, 17% (down 8) thought he should be given a ministry, and 17% (down 4) thought he should remain a backbencher.

48% said they had voted for the Coalition parties in at least one Federal or State election in the last decade, 47% had voted Labor, 18% for the Greens, 8% for One Nation, 5% for the Nick Xenophon Team and 11% for an Independent.

The 8% for One Nation is clearly too high, as the party barely existed before last year’s Federal election, winning 4.3% in the Senate – this is an example of false recall. In contrast, only 1% recalled voting for Palmer United Party, which won more votes in 2013 than One Nation did in 2016.

Additional questions from last week’s Newspoll have been released. 70% supported spending cuts to balance the budget, with just 20% for increased taxation. However, when asked about welfare cuts, 61% were opposed and just 30% in favour. While spending cuts in the abstract are far more popular than increased taxation, specific cuts can become very unpopular.

By 49-42, voters were opposed to allowing young people to access their superannuation to buy their first home. By 54-28, voters favoured reducing tax breaks for investors.

Last week, Family First merged with the Australian Conservatives (Cory Bernardi’s party). This will have no impact on the Senate balance of power, as Family First’s new Senator, Lucy Gichuhi, is not part of the merger, and will sit as an Independent. Two Family First members of the SA upper house will become Australian Conservatives.

French Presidential runoff: 7 May

In the first round of the French Presidential election held on 23 April, centrist Emmanuel Macron won 24.0% of the vote, followed by the far right Marine Le Pen on 21.3%, conservative Francois Fillon on 20.0% and the hard left Jean-Luc Mélenchon on 19.6%. The top two vote winners, Macron and Le Pen, qualified for the runoff next Sunday 7 May. Polls close at 4am Monday 8 May Melbourne time.

Since the first round, there has been a small movement to Le Pen in runoff polling, but Macron still leads by about 60-40. Fillon and Socialist candidate Benoit Hamon, who won 6.4%, have both endorsed Macron, but Mélenchon has not endorsed yet.

A key reason for Le Pen’s gains is that the abstention rate among Mélenchon’s supporters has risen from 30% at the start of the runoff campaign to 40% now. As with the US Presidential election, some on the hard left consider an established centrist candidate (Macron or Clinton) to be as bad as the far right Le Pen or Trump. However, Macron is far enough ahead that abstention from the hard left is very unlikely to cost him the election.

I will be doing an article on the runoff for the University of Melbourne’s Election Watch late next week.

UK general election: 8 June

In polls taken in the days following UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s announcement of the election, the Conservatives surged at the expense of UKIP. The Wikipedia poll graph has the Conservatives on 47%, Labour on 26%, the Liberal Democrats on 10% and UKIP dropping to 7%.

Recent polls have been better for Labour. A YouGov poll published today has the Conservative lead at 13 points, down from 23 points last Sunday. Another poll published today has the lead at 11 points. Both these polls have Labour at 31%, which would be unchanged on the 2015 result.

If the Conservatives fail to win a thumping majority, May’s authority is likely to be dented, in much the same way as Turnbull’s authority has been dented by the Coalition’s unexpected narrow win in 2016.

Jeremy Corbyn may ironically have Donald Trump to thank for Labour’s gains. A late March poll gave Trump an 18% approve, 60% disapprove rating with the UK public. Being perceived as an anti-Trump may work for Corbyn.

UK local government elections will be held on Thursday, with most results in by Saturday Melbourne time. Governments do much worse at local elections than at general elections, so any overall Conservative national popular vote projected win would imply that the Conservatives are headed for a large general election victory.

As UK polls have not had a good record, these local elections, which tally real votes, will be seen as an alternative guide to the general election.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Labor gains in Newspoll to move to 53-47 lead


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1710, had Labor leading by 53-47, a one point gain for Labor since last fortnight’s Newspoll that looked like an outlier. Primary votes were 36% for the Coalition (down 1), 36% for Labor (up 1), 10% for the Greens (up 1) and 10% for One Nation (steady). The Conversation

30% were satisfied with Turnbull’s performance (steady) and 59% were dissatisfied (up 2), for a net approval of -29. Turnbull’s ratings since the election have tended to be worse than voting intentions would imply, probably due to discontent from the hard right, who will nevertheless preference the Coalition ahead of Labor. Shorten’s net approval was up six points to -22.

The deal to pass company tax cuts for businesses with an annual turnover of up to $50 million was announced late Friday afternoon, two days into Newspoll’s fieldwork period. Thus this poll does not tell us about public reaction to the deal. I expect next week’s Essential will have questions on the deal.

The tax cut deal is a possible danger for Nick Xenophon. Minor parties that are perceived to have compromised on their principles in dealing with major parties can be wiped out. This happened to the Australian Democrats in the years following Meg Lees’ GST deal with John Howard, and the UK Liberal Democrats were reduced to just eight seats out of 650 at the 2015 UK general election, following five years of coalition government with the Conservatives.

60% of Nick Xenophon Team preferences went to Labor at the last Federal election, and 40% to the Coalition. If Xenophon continues to make deals with an unpopular Coalition government, his left-wing supporters could desert.

Essential at 53-47 to Labor

This week’s Essential, conducted over the last two weeks from a sample of 1800, has Labor ahead by 53-47, a 2 point gain for the Coalition since a blowout 55-45 Labor lead a fortnight ago. Primary votes are 37% Coalition, 36% Labor, 10% Greens, 8% One Nation and 3% Nick Xenophon Team. Additional questions are based on one week’s sample.

28% strongly supported the proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act that were defeated in the Senate last week, 27% were strongly opposed and the rest either did not have strong opinions or did not know. 51% supported a carbon emissions trading scheme in the electricity sector, with 21% opposed.

Most organisations to whom money given is tax deductible had at least majority support to remain that way, with the exception of churches and religious groups (34% support these being tax deductible, 51% oppose) and groups that campaign on social issues (34% support, 44% oppose).

Asked whether political parties should be able to receive donations from various entities, individual Australian voters were the only supported source (47-39). All other sources of donations were opposed by at least 55-30, with casinos and foreign companies at the bottom (over 70% opposed). 41% thought activist groups, such as GetUp, should not be allowed to accept foreign donations, with 31% in favour.

50% said it was never justified to break the law, while 37% thought it was sometimes justified.

High Court rules that Bob Day was invalidly elected in 2016

Today the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, ruled that Family First Senator Bob Day was ineligible to be elected at the 2016 election, as he had a financial interest in Commonwealth property.

The Court has ordered that a recount be held to fill Day’s seat. Such a recount will very probably elect Family First’s No. 2, Lucy Gichuhi. Since October 2016, when Day resigned from the Senate, the Senate has had 75 members, with 38 votes required to pass legislation. Gichuhi’s election will bring the Senate back to its normal 76 members, with 39 votes required to pass legislation.

Bob Day was the Coalition’s most reliable crossbench supporter, but it is wrong to say his vote has been missed because the requirement to pass legislation was reduced by one in his absence. A key question now is whether Gichuhi will be a Bob Day clone on legislation, or whether she is more left wing. Gichuhi will not be able to take her seat until the Senate next sits on 9 May.

Had the High Court ruled that Day was validly elected, his replacement would have been selected by Family First. Day’s former chief of staff, Rikki Lambert, would have been the favourite. Lambert is now Cory Bernardi’s chief of staff, and would have probably been a Bob Day clone.

A final twist could occur if the Kenyan-born Gichuhi did not renounce her Kenyan citizenship prior to the 2016 election. In that case, following another High Court challenge, the seat would go to Labor’s Anne McEwen. Fairfax commentator Adam Gartrell tweeted that Family First is confident that Gichuhi is a valid candidate.

Tasmania: Shane Broad defeats Brenton Best to replace Bryan Green

Following former Labor leader Bryan Green’s resignation from Parliament on 17 March, a recount was held Monday in his electorate of Braddon to determine who would replace him using Green’s votes at the 2014 election. While both Broad and Best were Labor candidates at the last election, Best had been a troublemaker in the last Parliament; he was strongly opposed to the Labor/Greens coalition government.

After exclusion of other candidates, Broad defeated Best by 60-40. This will be a relief to Labor, which absolutely did not want Best back in Parliament.

French Presidential election update

The French Presidential election will be held in two rounds. All candidates will compete in the first round on 23 April, with the top two proceeding to a runoff election on 7 May.

Current polls give the centrist Emmanuel Macron about 26% of the first round vote, followed by the far right’s Marine Le Pen on 25%, conservative Francois Fillon on 18%, the hard left’s Jean-Luc Melenchon on 15% and Socialist Benoit Hamon on 10%.

In the last fortnight, the standings of the top three candidates are little changed, with Macron just ahead of Le Pen now after being narrowly behind. However, Melenchon has surged at the expense of Hamon. This probably reflects prominent Socialist politicians backing Macron instead of Hamon, causing Hamon to lose votes on both his left and right flanks.

In the second round, Macron continues to lead Le Pen by about 60-40. However, Fillon’s second round lead over Le Pen is down to 53-47 in one survey, which gives Le Pen a chance in the unlikely event that Fillon rather than Macron makes the runoff.

I will be doing an article on this election for the University of Melbourne’s Election Watch in the days before the first round.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Electoral system flaws deny Labor and Greens WA upper house majority


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

At the Western Australian election held 11 March, Labor won a landslide in the lower house, winning 41 of the 59 seats. However, in the upper house Labor and the Greens combined won 18 of the 36 seats, one short of an outright majority. There were two reasons for the left’s underperformance in the upper house: malapportionment in favour of rural regions and the group voting ticket system. The Conversation

There are six upper house regions, three in Perth and three in the rest of WA. Each region elects six members to the upper house, so the quota is 1/7 of the vote, or 14.3%.

I wrote here that Perth only has half the upper house seats despite having 77% of the state’s population. However, the problem is worse than this. As Antony Green wrote, a voter in the deeply conservative Agricultural region has almost 4 times the weight of a Perth voter. A voter in the Mining & Pastoral region, which is becoming more conservative, has almost six times the weight of a Perth voter.

At this election, about 49,000 formal votes were recorded in Mining & Pastoral region, 88,000 in Agricultural region and 194,000 in South West region. The three metropolitan regions had at least 334,000 formal votes each, more than the non-Perth regions combined.

Although Labor’s vote improved across the state from 2013, Labor and the Greens combined won two of the six seats in Agricultural region, and just barely three of the six in Mining & Pastoral. In all other regions, Labor and the Greens easily won at least three of the six seats per region. Here is the final upper house results table. Vote shares and changes from 2013 are from Wikipedia.

WA upper house.

The table shows the effect of malapportionment, with the Nationals, who only contested the non-Perth regions, winning as many seats as the Greens on half the Greens’ vote. Others in the table are the Shooters in Agricultural region and the Liberal Democrats in South Metro.

If all the non-Perth regions (South West, Agricultural and Mining & Pastoral) were combined, and non-Perth representaion reduced to six, Labor would have won 2.30 quotas, the Liberals 1.44, the Nationals 1.26, One Nation 0.80, the Greens 0.44 and the Shooters 0.33.

With One Nation short of a quota, so they would soak up right wing votes, and Labor’s surplus going heavily to the Greens, the Greens would have been likely to defeat the Liberals for the final seat, resulting in Labor 2, Liberals, Nationals, One Nation and Greens one each outside Perth, rather than the actual result of Labor/Greens 8, all Others 10.

There were three cases where a candidate who did not deserve to win won through the artificial preference flows under the group voting system, which is still used in WA. In Agricultural region, the Shooters, with 0.40 quotas, defeated One Nation with 0.82. In East Metro, One Nation, with 0.56 quotas, defeated the 2nd Liberal, who had 0.75 quotas. So much for some people’s theories that One Nation would not benefit from group voting tickets.

Most disappointing for the left, in South Metro the Liberal Democrats, with 0.27 quotas, defeated the Greens with 0.65 quotas. In that region, the Liberal Democrats were to the left of the Liberals on the ballot paper, and won 3.9% of the vote mostly due to name confusion. In all other regions, the Liberal Democrats were to the right of the Liberals, and won about 1%.

The table below represents what I think would have happened had the current Senate system been used for the WA upper house, and the malapportionment removed.

WA upper house fair.

This would give Labor and the Greens 14 of the 24 seats. In this scenario the Greens would win four seats, to one for One Nation. This may seem unfair on One Nation, but the Greens benefited from Labor surpluses, while the Liberals had no surpluses to spare to help One Nation. Individual “Others” did not receive many votes, and none would have won if not for the artificial preference flows that only happen when parties, not voters, direct preferences.

In the WA upper house, the President can only vote to break a tie. If Labor can persuade a non-Labor/Greens member to take the Presidency, Labor and the Greens would have 18 of the 35 votes on the floor. If a Labor member takes the Presidency, Labor will need the Greens and one vote from a right wing member to pass legislation.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Labor seizes 55-45 lead in Ipsos with the Greens at an unrealistic 16%


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

This week’s Ipsos, conducted Wednesday to Saturday from a sample of 1400, had Labor leading 55-45, a 4 point gain for Labor since late November. Primary votes were 34% for Labor (up 4), 33% for the Coalition (down 3) and 16% for the Greens (steady). The headline figure in Ipsos uses the last election preferences method; by respondent allocated preferences, it is 56-44 to Labor, a 5 point gain for Labor. The Conversation

Ipsos’ two polls since the last election have both had the Greens on 16%, while no other poll during that period has had the Greens on more than 11%. In the lead-up to the last election, Ipsos had a strong skew towards the Greens. If anything, that skew appears to have increased.

40% approved of Turnbull’s performance (down 5) and 48% disapproved (up 3), for a net approval of -8. Ipsos has given Turnbull far better ratings than Newspoll. Shorten’s net approval was -18, down 2 points.

Surprisingly, 44% supported reducing company tax rates to 25% over the next ten years, with 39% opposed. Two weeks ago, Essential found that 46% disapproved of the $50 billion in cuts to medium and large business, with 24% approving. Presumably, Ipsos did not mention the cost, or which companies would benefit.

63% thought that more businesses would not open on Sundays and public holidays following the reduction in penalty rates, while 29% thought more businesses would open. A Newspoll question from last week found that 59% thought penalty rates should be higher on Sunday, 29% wanted Sunday penalty rates reduced to Saturday rates, and 10% wanted penalty rates for weekend work abolished.

In Ipsos, 78% thought it should be unlawful to “offend, insult or humiliate” someone on the basis of race or ethnicity, with just 17% for lawful. However, Essential this week found 45% approving of the proposed change to replace “insult, offend or humiliate” with “harass”, with 34% disapproving. Question wording can make a large difference.

With Ipsos at 55-45 to Labor, and Essential at 54-46, it looks as if last week’s Newspoll that showed a 3-point recovery for the Coalition to close to 52-48 may have been an outlier. The next Newspoll will be interesting.

Essential at 54-46 to Labor

This week’s Essential, conducted over the last two weeks from a sample of 1810, was at 54-46 to Labor, a one point gain for the Coalition since last week. Primary votes were 37% Labor, 35% Coalition, 10% Greens, 8% One Nation and 4% Nick Xenophon Team – this is the lowest One Nation support recorded in Essential since January. Additional questions are based on one week’s sample.

40% thought racial discrimination laws were about right, 26% too weak and 16% too strict; these figures are little changed from November.

A question on priorities for the government had 46% nominating health, followed by “ensuring big businesses pay their fair share of tax” at 30% and unemployment at 26%. Cutting company tax was at the bottom, with only 3% nominating it as a priority. Since July 2016, health is down 9 points, education and deficit reduction both down 7 points, renewable energy up 6 and same sex marriage up 4.

41% thought Australia’s relationship with the US was becoming worse, with just 6% for better, presumably due to President Trump. 59% approved of the proposal to expand the Snowy Hydro scheme, with just 12% disapproving.

Newspoll’s additional questions are sometimes skewed to the right

While voting intentions and leaders’ ratings questions are asked in the same format every Newspoll survey, additional questions on the public’s attitude to various issues have sometimes been skewed towards the viewpoint of Newspoll’s publisher, The Australian.

In this article, Kevin Bonham was critical of Newspoll’s question last week on Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Yesterday, we were told that 47% were in favour of a new coal-fired power station, with 40% opposed (paywalled link).

The question is, “Would you be in favour or opposed to the Federal government helping fund the construction of a new coal-fired power station to improve energy security?” It is not established that a new coal-fired power station, which would take years to construct, would improve energy security. Those four last words should have been omitted from the question.

A February Essential found 45% opposed to new coal-fired power stations in Australia, and 31% in favour.

Rebecca White replaces Bryan Green as Tasmania’s Labor leader

Even though the party vote shares indicated a Labor/Greens parliamentary majority, the last EMRS Tasmanian poll had Premier Will Hodgman crushing Labor leader Bryan Green as better Premier 52-20. Partly as a result of this poll, Green resigned from Parliament on 17 March, and Rebecca White was elected unopposed by the Labor caucus. The next Tasmanian election is due early next year.

A November 2016 ReachTEL poll had 31.5% preferring White as Labor leader, followed by Scott Bacon on 19%, Lara Giddings on 15% and the incumbent Green on just 14%. White was ahead in all five electorates, including Green’s electorate of Braddon.

A countback using Green’s votes will be held to decide his parliamentary replacement. Shane Broad and Brenton Best are the contenders, although only Broad has so far announced he will contest. A Best win would be bad for Labor, as he was rebellious in the last Parliament.

Donald Trump’s Obamacare repeal attempt flops

At the 2016 election, Republicans won a 241-194 majority in the US House, and a 52-48 Senate majority. Despite the large House majority, Republicans were unable to pass a bill in that chamber to repeal and replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan was forced to withdraw the repeal bill, and said afterwards that Obamacare would be the law for the “foreseeable future”.

The repeal bill failed because it lost the support of both hard right and more moderate Republicans. Appeasing the hard right Freedom caucus would have lost more support from the more moderate Republicans, and vice versa. Of course, Republicans could have made their bill centrist enough to attract some Democrats, but that would have been unthinkable!

It did not help Republicans that the public was strongly opposed to their Obamacare replacement plan. Midterm elections will be held in November 2018, and some Republicans were afraid that supporting this bill could cost their party many seats.

Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website has Trump at 42% approval, 52% disapproval using a poll aggregation method. Over the last few weeks, Trump’s ratings have dropped a net six points, likely due to the health care debate.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Government behind 45-55% in Ipsos poll


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The Turnbull government trails Labor 45-55% on the two-party vote in the Fairfax Ipsos poll, as the Senate prepares to drastically restrict the proposed company tax cuts and reject changes to Section 18C in parliament’s last week before the pre-budget break. The Conversation

The Ipsos poll has found 44% support the government’s ten-year plan to reduce the company tax rate to 25%, while 39% oppose.

But the Senate is set to back the cuts only for smaller businesses. Malcolm Turnbull on Friday flagged the government would continue to push the full plan, even after a Senate defeat.

The Nick Xenophon Team has indicated it will shoot down the government’s proposed changes to the wording of 18C, which is being rushed to a vote.

Meanwhile, the government is stepping up its moves on energy policy by directing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to review retail energy prices.

Announcing the review, Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison said it would examine electricity retailer behaviour, as well as contracts offered to residential and business customers, to ensure consumers benefit from competition in the National Electricity Market.

The government is behind in the polls generally, with some differences in the degree. In Newspoll last week, the Coalition trailed Labor 48-52%, while Essential had the two-party vote at 45-55%.

Taken between Wednesday and Saturday, the Ipsos poll found Labor’s primary vote on 34% and the Coalition’s at 33%. The Greens were on 16%, and the “other” vote was 17%. The two-party vote is on the basis of preferences at the 2016 election.

Turnbull’s approval is 40%; his disapproval is 48%. Bill Shorten’s approval is 35%, while 53% disapprove of his performance. Turnbull leads 45-33% as preferred prime minister. Fairfax has not polled since November, when Labor had a 51-49% two-party lead.

The latest move on energy policy follows Turnbull recently seeking guarantees of domestic supply from the gas producers and announcing the government will expand the Snowy Hydro. There is an inquiry into the future security of the national energy market underway chaired by the chief scientist, Alan Finkel.

In their statement Turnbull and Morrison said that competition in retail energy markets should mean lower prices for householders and businesses. But “retail electricity markets don’t appear to be operating as effectively as they could”. The government was “determined to ensure Australians get a better deal for their energy”.

They said that recent work, including by the Australian Energy Market Commission, Energy Consumers Australia and the Grattan Institute, had highlighted significant concern about the causes of recent electricity price increases on the east coast. Submissions to the Finkel review had also raised concerns.

The ACCC inquiry would identify cost components of electricity retail pricing and how they affect the retail offers made to customers. It would look at whether electricity retailers’ margins and profitability are in line with their costs and risks, as well as considering impediments to consumer choice, such as the clarity of contracts.

It would also examine the competitiveness of offers available to larger business customers, taking into account the conduct of the wholesale electricity market.

The inquiry will have until June 30 next year to report, with the ACCC producing a paper on its “preliminary insights” within six months.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/egvg5-68f11e?from=yiiadmin

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.