Analysis

There is strong agreement across our respondents that drowning in backyard pools is an important, but chronic problem. 80% think it is important, but only 15% agree it has got worse over the last 10 years. This suggests that it is an important, but probably not urgent, issue to most.

717 completed surveys were received by the deadline with a further 6 received after.

We dissected responses by voting intentions, age, gender, dwelling type and pool ownership. While there were small differences between response rates it appears that the community tends to agree on causes and remedies, irrespective of factors which might have predisposed them to one view or another.

The importance of the issue is largely because:

• It involves children
• It is preventable

Respondents believe that the responsibility for preventing drownings rests with parents more than pool owners (78%). They have little faith in pool fencing on its own, and tend to believe that in cases where pool fencing is at fault inspections at any frequency will make little difference.

Accordingly their favoured solutions to the problem are:

• Education of parents (66% rated as first or second most important)
• Subsidised swimming lessons for toddlers (46% rated as first or second most important)

Their least favoured solutions are annual inspections (60% ranked last or second last most important) and four-yearly inspections (72% ranked last or second last most important). Their responses suggest that they favour pool fencing as a measure, but that they tend to assume that in most cases it is in place.

Some respondents also suggested a couple of other solutions which might be useful. These were:

• Mandatory education in pool safety and first aid techniques for new pool owners
• Education for parents in CPR.

Verbatims

Why is it an important issue?

"In general, I regard the unnecessary death of any child as a tragedy." (Female, 65-74, Very Important)

"I find it unacceptable when the risks are well known and these drownings are totally preventable." (Female, 25-34, Very Important)

"Pool fences didn't solve the problem. Teaching kids to swim would go much further. Also parental responsibility seems to have been passed to ALL of us, not just those with kids. I'd like to know the real statistics" (Female, 55-64, Very Important)

"Pools should be treated like driving a car-- need a licence, need first aid, and need to be vigilant-- aslo all kids need to know how to swim." (Female, 55-64, Very Important)

"Parents should be responsible. Are all roads fenced? No! and children aren't being run over. Are the Ocean or dams fenced? No! and children aren't drowning regularly. Why are pools the exception? How long before we have to fence buckets of water" (Male, 45-54, Unimportant)

"Any childs death from accident is concerning to me. Its important, but noting its hard to prevent totally, I am not sure I could rate the issue higher. Road deaths and abuse are higher order issues" (Male, 35-44, Important)

"It is a multifaceted issue. I think children will always be drowning in water - they love playing in water - parents cannot and do not supervise them 100% of the time. You can put down a thousand rules about pools and water - children will still drown." (Female, 45-54, Important)

"If one puts in a pool, one is responsible for one's own and visitors' children. Neighbour's kiddies are the responsibility of the neighbour to prevent the kiddies from straying, i.e. trespassing in other's yards." (Female, no age, Neither important nor unimportant)

"Every pool drowning is very sad but all the laws, regulations, mandated annual inspections etc will not achieve a significant reduction over time. All the talk re the above is media beat up and govt wanting to be seen to be doing something." (Male, 55-64, Neither important nor unimportant)

What is the most important factor

"It is the 0-5% factor - that moment in time when all the odds are stacked. Some things in life are like that." (Female, 45-54, Important)

"People do not watch their kids or have not taught them to survive if they fall in the pool." (Female, 55-64, Important)

"Children will always gravitate towards pools of water that cannot be stopped. Supervision of children is important but sometimes events occur that are not anybody's fault." (Female, 65-54, Important)

"Lack of parental supervision and children should be taught to float or swim at a VERY EARLY AGE" (Male, 65-74, Very Important)

"i believe most drownings occur because of a lack of supervision and pure bad luck?I say this because children can be very resourceful and persistant and it only takes a minute and it's too late." (Male, 45-54, Very Important)

"sheer stupidity brought on by complacency by the idiots who believe children can't climb, aren't attracted to water, and a shitty little fence is all they need to do" (Male, 45-54, Very Important)

"Lack of education and awareness - victim families seem to have had a false sense of security, with a need for research into how kids normally get unobserved access and development of better preventative and warning devices, even if 'unsightly'." (Female, 55-64, Very Important)

Possible solutions

"An education programm in schools. A stricter examination of the fencing surrounding the pools. The employment of pool fencing inspectors as their only duty." (Male, 65-74, Very Important)

"Introduce amendments if the Act needs strengthening. Otherwise ensure that local councils are policing the legisltion or provide more resources to do that and educate people with pools re their responsibilities." (Female, 55-64, Very Important)

"Education campaign directly targeting pool owners. Most pool fences work just fine already." (Female, 45-54, Very Important)

"Educate everyone. No-one wants to take responsibility for their lack of action be it the pool owner, the parent of the child. Everone has a role in protecting children, no one more so than the parents." (Male, 55-64, Very Important)

"Responsibilty is the answer. Heavy fines for inadequate fencing - involuntary manslaughter the charge if the child dies" (Female, 65-74, Very Important)

"limit pool ownership to those people who could pass a safety tests (ie. resuscitation + pool safety rules) Prosecute carers who allow children to have unsupervised access to pools" (Female, 55-64, Very Important)

"Seriously I agree with yealry inspections. If you can afford the pool you can afford a small feee for the inspection. A family should have to show they have all completed CPR courses before the pool is approved." (Male, 35-44, Very Important)

Move over Nanny State, parental responsibility is back. That's the headline message from 723 Queenslanders we interviewed in an online qualitative survey about backyard drowning and politics.

It is a message that has implications for Bligh and Springborg in this election year.

Frequently political decisions are made on the basis of the Yes Minister syllogism of "here is a problem, something must be done about it, this is something, therefore it must be done".

Our respondents don't buy that logic.

Just before Christmas the Bligh government floated the idea of 4-yearly, or even annual, inspections of pool fencing.

Our respondents disagree, whether they supported the government or opposition, were male or female, young or old, or owned a pool or not.

Out of a list of solutions, annual inspections were ranked second last and four-yearly inspections last by 60 and 72 percent. Highest ranked were educating parents (66 percent) and subsidising toddlers’ swimming lessons (46 percent).

This is not surprising. 78% believe that parents rather than pool owners bear the higher responsibility.

They see the government's role as marginal, and backyard drownings as an important, but intractable problem, to which there is no perfect solution.

In an era where governments declare war on every chronic problem this research carries an important message. The public doesn't believe many of these programs are any more than public relations.

The political questions in our survey reveal the danger of this approach.

Six months ago we uncovered dissatisfaction with the Bligh government not evident in quantitative polls.

Apart from the length of time Labor has been in government the big issues were to do with infrastructure - water and roads - and health.

These were the reasons for the dissatisfaction.

In this poll the infrastructure issues are much less significant, and Labor gets the credit for fixing a number of them, yet Bligh's net dissatisfaction has slightly increased.

There are two possible explanations. The first goes right back to issues like backyard swimming pools.

While problems are being addressed, Queenslanders think that the only reason they are being addressed is to give the government another media opportunity. They refer to this as "spin".

The second is that the economy didn't rank as an issue in the middle of last year, but now it ranks above roads, and is strongly linked to concerns about the future.

It is as though our respondents are determined to disapprove of Anna Bligh, no matter what she does. Good performance will be discounted as spin, and circumstances beyond her control will be blamed on her.

This might be good news for the Opposition, except they have similar perception problems. Springborg's net approval has increased a little, partly because of a real achievement in forming the Liberal National Party. That is where it stops.

The biggest problem Springborg has is he is perceived to have no policies.

Voters want to know what the LNP stands for, and while Springborg has been in Parliament for almost 20 years, they still want to know more about him too. Without that knowledge everything he says is spin too.

Which must make it difficult for the Premier in deciding when to hold the next election.

With early election speculation rife, 37 percent of our respondents said they would be less likely to vote for the government if an election was held in February or March.

But if the economy is only going to get worse, and everything you do is seen as just a media stunt, maybe this is as good as it gets, particularly as your opposition is still vulnerable to the same criticism.

Could be time to dive in.

First published in The Courier Mail on January 21, 2009

There is plenty of speculation that Premier Anna Bligh may go to an early election, so we've decided to get in first.

You can find our first questionnaire of the year at http://polling.nationalforum.com.au/index.php?sid=39517&lang=en.

We're also looking at the issue of backyard drownings. The government has announced an inquiry and we will send them the results.

On-air notes

1. 1,265 responses. 45% female, 55% male. Weighted towards older Australians
2. 49% from Queensland, 22% NSW, 11% Vic, 7% SA, 6% WA, 3% ACT, 1% Tas
3. Most influential media for elections: Radio 15%, Newspapers 14%, Internet 11%, TV 11%, Social 10%, Paid media 6%. Reflects a decline in both newspapers and TV and the rise of the Internet.
4. The Internet was the most favoured by the under-thirties, particularly women, and was also very popular with under 40s.
5. Radio fairly uniformly popular across all age groups, while newspapers were preferred by the 40 to 60 age groups.
6. Some cross-over between social and Internet and between Newspapers and Internet.
7. TV has some life yet at least with younger women.
8. When it comes to frequency for news ABC Radio and TV win hands-down over Newspapers and Internet, which more or less tie. Commercial Radio really bombs.
9. When it comes to increases in frequency of use for news, newspapers are in mild decline, commercial broadcasters in steep decline, public broadcasters increasing in use and the Internet rocketing away.
10. For entertainment our respondents most frequently turn to the public broadcasters and then to the Internet.
11. They don’t perceive an increase in their use of most of these media, apart from the Internet. (This of course can’t be correct, unless they are spending more time consuming media in total than they did before).
12. When it comes to reliability, they favour the public broadcasters, then the Internet. Newspapers are ranked well-below the Internet, and the commercial broadcasters are seen as being more unreliable than reliable.
13. Take-out message – Commercial broadcasters are in trouble and the Public Broadcasters are filling the gap at the moment, but the Internet is charging in. Newspapers are essentially stagnant. Younger consumers have moved decisively to the ’net and prefer less “official” sites.

We discussed recycling sewage for drinking water this morning on the basis of what you told us. I've reproduced the notes below, and if you want notes plus tables, you can click here to download my original word document. Should mention that one of our partners, the Local Government Association of Queensland specifically asked us to do this poll. They did a quantitative poll last week (press release can be downloaded here ). But quants only tell you so much, and they had a specific interest in knowing the "why" of the issue. This information will presumably be taken into consideration in whatever action the south east Queensland mayors take.

1. Huge turn-around in support since our last poll which was held in October last year.
2. This time 76% support and only 17% oppose. Last time 47% supported and 35% disapproved. Political complexion of two polls roughly similar, apart from Greens, who are about 10% higher.
3. Higher level of support than represented in the other available polls – LGAQ 60.9% in favour in SE, 27.6% against. CM poll 66 percent support, 18 percent opposed. I did a sub-sample balanced by voting intention against Newspoll’s results, which gave 73% support, 19% opposed. Reasonably close, but outside the error margin.
4. Reason for move in support probably lies in the Toowoomba poll. It has educated us about the issue, and it has also set-up a dynamic where the rest of the state doesn’t want to be dictated to by a small, unrepresentative, rural vote.
5. Greens are most heavily supportive (89%), and Nationals the least (51% support).
6. Whether respondents thought Toowoomba’s result ought to affect the rest of the state rested pretty heavily on whether they supported the recycling proposal or not.
7. More people opposed Beattie’s referendum than supported it. Only Labor voters were in support, but only to 51%.
8. Reasons for opposing the proposal
   1. Not enough knowledge
   2. “Yuk” factor
   3. Rationing, fix waste
   4. Safety of recycled water (including hormones)
   5. Other alternatives, like tanks, desalination
   6. Shouldn’t have to pay the price for other people’s bad planning
   7. Potential for system breakdown
9. Reasons for supporting the proposal
   1. Much drinking water already originally contains sewage
   2. Less damage to the environment than alternatives
   3. Safe
   4. No alternative
   5. Recycling is good
10. What would make you change your mind?
    1. More information
    2. Armageddon
    3. Trialed successfully
    4. Only used for industry and agriculture
    5. Full dams
    6. If it was proven to be unsafe
11. Should the Toowoomba result affect the rest of the state
    1. Should be indicative of the state of Queensland
    2. Every area should decide for itself
    3. Rednecks
    4. Politicians should make decisions
    5. Need better education
    6. Abandoned by state and federal politicians, not enough resources for “Yes” case.
    7. One small group shouldn’t dictate to the rest of the state
    8. Incompetent “Yes” campaign.

Verbatims (please note that all quotes are reproduced exactly as they were typed into our system, including typos and grammatical errors):

“I think Recycled sewerage water could be used as a source of water for other areas of the household preferrably not for drinking however I have heard scientifically that the water after treatment is safer than most water - it is the concept that is difficult to overcome.” Female, 31-40, Greens.

“The debate has been too emotive on both sides. The Greens make recycling sound like the Messiah whilst for Labor it is the Armageddon” Male, 31-40, Nationals

“If every home collected rain water suffient for the household useage, there wouldn't be any need for recycling. We have lost our home to Mr Battie's Wet Dream (the Traveston Dam) and although we oppose the building of dams in unsuitable places, we still stongly oppose recyling sewage water. We live in a very dry area and have three rainwater tanks and an Ozziecycle to protect the environment. This water is supposed to be pure enough to drink. If this is so, why can't people living in the Buffer Zone around the proposed dams stay where they are and continue using the recycling method? No. The State want all septics systems and personal recycling systems no closser than 200m....why if the water is supposed to so pure?” Female, 51-60, Greens

“in some town in germany they did try it, after sometime the company wanted to cut costs and took out about 1/4 of the scrubbing process (part of the filtering) and within 3 months most of the town was sick with stomach problems. The garbage collections company is already talking about cutting costs and yet the want to privatise the water we drink as well !?” Male, 18-30, Labor

“Our water supply is not endless - we MUST get smarter about using it and valuing it. AND anyone who thinks our water supply already doesn't have heaps of sewage, animal droppings, dead animals, rubbish etc - has never gone rowing on Brisbane River!” Female, 31-40, Greens “

It helps to improve water quality in out rivers, saves buidling dams, is cheaper, more sustainble (dams are letting us down), solves the water supply problem, and uses less energy than desalination.” Female, 61+, Greens

“The only objection I've seen is of the "I don't want to drink sewerage" variety - hardly an argument and not what's being proposed. All wate is recycled and the proposal is to speed up/complement the natural cycle by pumping the recycled water into dams from where it will be treated like all the water there. What's not to like about that? They could recycle it to potable water standard and pipe it straight to my tap for all the problems I see with it. It's more energy efficient than desalination and apart from some pipes and pumps to move it from the recyling plants to the dams the infrastructure is largely already in place. Who cares where the water starts as long as what comes out of the tap is to the required standard? This pandering to the fearful and ignorant and calling it democracy is a cowardly abdication of government's responsibility to provide such a basic service.” Male, 41-50, Labor (Liberal last election)

“nothing. i am a microbiologist. i know the truth.” Male, 31-40, Labor

“If the same clowns as have ruined Qld Health and the electricity grid are in charge of purefying the water.” Male, 51-60, Independent

“Because I think we need a vigorous public education campaign to make sure people actually know the facts about water recycling. As far as I'm concerned there is no "No" case they have no facts whatsoever behind them. An small, ill-informed electorate (Toowoomba) should not decide for the wider community something of this importance.” Male, 18-30, Greens.

“N/A If you look at the demographics of the people in Toowoomba it is obviopus that they would not support recycling. they are of that generation. I know my sister lives there and she voted no yet she is quite hgappy to drink my tank water which is probably polluted by bird shit and dead lizards” Male, 61+, Labor

“The toowoomba residents now have bee nrightly portraid as ignorant hics” Male, 31-40, Greens “

The Toowoomba vote was not handled well by the 'yes' proponents in that they appeared arrogant and the perception to the community was 'we know best, take it or leave it'. The community did not like it being shoved down their throats.” Male, 41-50, Liberal “

The residents of Toowoomba were undoubtedly influenced by the prior political rhetoric of Premier Beattie. His government is on record as recently as late 2004 stating the Toowoomba has reserves that would last to at least 2015. A few weeks ago using recycled water in Wivenhoe would only be an "armageddon" solution. Is it any wonder that residents of Toowoomba were lead to believe that use of recyled water was unnecessary!!” Male, 41-50, Liberal