Quantitative

Total Sample

Swinging Sample

Conclusion

Qualitative

Total sample pivots

1. Sample heavily left-leaning. 31% ALP, 27% Greens, 15% Liberal, 5% National. Older than average demographic, with highest proportion (31%) between 51 and 60 years of age. Males outnumbered females almost two-to one in the plus 51 age group, and by 60% to 40% overall.
2. Most believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction. This aligns with voting intention. 21% think we’re heading in the right direction, compared to 70% who think the reverse.
3. Only 25% approved of the budget, versus 58% who disapproved. However, 89% of Liberals and 88% of Nationals approved. A balanced sample would have shown a majority in support.
4. However 37% said that they would be better off because of the budget. So 12% benefited but altruistically thought it was a bad budget.
5. Only 24% thought it would be good for the economy. Again, Liberals 81% of Liberals thought it would be good, as well as 88% of Nationals. A balanced sample would therefore think it was good for the economy.
6. When it came to alternatives, most favoured either tax cuts, or increased spending on health and education. Because of the bias in the sample, this was distorted. Making allowance for the bias, tax cuts and services were probably pretty evenly matched.
7. Incentives to working or non-working spouses or to older Australians were not well-supported. Infrastructure also rated very well with a less intense feeling in favour of it than services.
8. 71% disapproved of Howard’s performance, but 58% disapproved of Beazley’s as well. However, 91% of Coalition voters approve, so sample bias at play again.
9. 35% want Julia Gillard as leader, compared to 20% for Kevin Rudd, 15% for Paul Keating and 10% for Kim Beazley. None of the above is only 12%
10. 172% and 75% of Coalition voters want Howard as leader, but only 19% of the total sample. Malcolm Turnbull tops the total sample at 20%, followed by Howard, then Costello. Abbott and Downer both get 1% each.
11. When it comes to household budgets there are a few obvious factors:
12. Many households find themselves under price-pressure from petrol, interest rates and food prices (no-one much mentions rent). They find the tax deductions derisory.
13. Some households are earning lots of money and traveling well - they thought that tax cuts were great.
14. Because they can’t see that they can earn enough after tax to pay for their needs, they would prefer the government to pay them for them.
15. Word counts and quotes on the household budget issue provide quantitative support for the issues being caused by higher petrol and money prices with petrol being by far the larger issue.

1. The support for the public system has declined even more on the last survey, even though the survey was chock a block with Labor voters and teachers. Agree/Strongly Agree headed in right direction down from 42% to 28% in 12 months.
2. Support for public v private schools for your own kids still looks around 50/50, after adjustment for Labor/Green bias in the sample (I think Graham is doing a check here), with two thirds of left wing voters supporting the public system and two thirds of coalition voters supporting the private system.  
3. Teachers loved the questionnaire, especially teachers in Government schools. The overall numbers were up more than ten-fold on the last survey.
4. These teachers tended to support the public system, in principal, but, in practice, thought it had had it, with insufficient funding, run down buildings, excessive class sizes, trendy syllabuses and not enough of the basics, lack of male teachers, as some of the problems mentioned.
5. Many respondents seem to think the Federal Government is to blame for problems with the state education system … it seems the blame shifting we are seeing in health is having some benefits in education, for the Beattie Government. Which leads to the last point, due to Federal Funding of Private School education …
6. There is perception, mixed into this framework, that the state Government has started to delay building public schools in fast growing areas, leaving the cost burden increasingly to the Federal Government and the private school system … a comment we have heard from other states. This is good news for the private school system, but makes for a pretty dismal report card for the State Labor Government, if it is correct.

Dot points

1. Sample leans to the left but is reasonably balanced by gender and age.
2. Labor on 26%, Liberal 13%, National 22% and Greens 18%.
3. Shows two-party preferred win to Labor 51% to 49%. Given sample bias this is a loss.
4. Only 20% of sample said they would not preference.
5. Strength of Coalition vote outside the South-East. In Brisbane sample shows 60% vote to Labor after prefs.
6. Swing appears to be about 9% to 11% away from Labor on first prefs.
7. Only 29% of voters think the state is heading in the right direction and 56% percent think it is heading in the wrong direction.
8. Of those who think it is heading in the right direction, their answers are most frequently in the "Yes, but..." format. Significant issues for them are Health, Economy, Growth, Population, Infrastructure, Education.
9. For those who think it is heading in the wrong direction, their issues are Health, Education, Water, Infrastructure, Planning, Environment, Growth, Population.
10. Beattie is viewed unfavourably by 30%, unfavourably by 57%. Springborg is 33%, 40% and Quinn 11%, 54%.
11. ALP voters narrowly prefer Beattie of Bligh 26% to 25%, Springborg easily beats Seeney 36% to 3%, but 44% don’t want any. Quinn comes in last 7% after Flegg 18% and Caltabiano 14%, but 43% want none of them.
12. A huge hesitation negative for Labor is Beattie 116 responses, while Springborg is a negative for Nats 53 and Quinn for Libs 76 responses.
13. The Coalition and their partners are significant negatives for National Party and Liberal Party.

Voting intention this election

2PP

Approval of direction of the state

Posted for Bill Gale

I do not know if what I am suggesting is your line of enquiry but here goes.

Some years ago the ABC interviewed an Occupational Therapist from Western Australia who had gone to great lengths to live and then study aboriginal children comprehension.

it was a simple test. I am 75 and when a scout it was called Kim's game. I wonder if it still a test. about 25 items were set out in square say 2 ft sq. they were simple things like a peg, a pen top a rubber =, a paper clip and so on -- any small thing. The O T did the same and gave the aboriginal children a minute or two to study the items they were covered and the children asked to recall the items and a score kept. she did same for Caucasian children at another time.

the findings were aboriginal children scored poorly compared with the Caucasians. BUT when she changed the question and asked Aboriginal children What was next to the rubber their recall was far ahead of Caucasian.

she then tried with Caucasian children who had low attention span in school and had not scored well in the "recall" test by asking them "What was next to the rubber etc?" she found they performed as well as the aboriginal children.

her conclusion was that Aboriginal children need a different form of schooling and why has it fascinated me? I have a son and grandson who are very bright but fit clearly into the ones who's attention is poor and school results to match.

I have tried to get the original research because it could be fundamental to a different approach to the education of the average aboriginal child. As I said I guess this is outside your realm of enquiry but I have been busting to tell someone.