Voters support the government’s NDIS levy and prefer Labor’s paid parental leave scheme over the Coalition’s, today’s Essential Report shows. But both Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard have improved their standing with voters.
The Prime Minister’s standing with voters has picked up from April with 38% approval and 54% disapproval, a fall of six points in her net disapproval rating. Abbott has secured his approval ratings since mid-2011, with approval of 40% (up three) and disapproval of 50% (down two), putting Abbott for the first time within sight of a possible net positive approval rating.
Both picked up two points as preferred prime minister, which Abbott leads 41%-39%. With “undecideds” at just 20%, the remaining undecided voters may be starting to harden their views.
Labor picked up a point on its primary vote to 34%; the Coalition remains on 48% and the Greens on 9%, so the 2PP outcome edges down a point in Labor’s favour: the Coalition leads 55-45%.
There appears to be only limited concern about the prospect of a Coalition government controlling both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Almost a third — 32% — of voters say a government controlling both houses is in the best interests of Australia; the balance of power being held by the independents and minor parties is seen as better by 25%. Voters for the major parties are much more relaxed about a government controlling both houses, while most Greens voters prefer minor parties holding the balance of power. The “don’t know” level of 28%, however, suggests voters may be open to a campaign to differentiate House of Reps and Senate outcomes.
The government’s decision to implement an NDIS levy is supported by voters by 57-30%, and is even supported by more Liberal voters than oppose it. And after a week of discussion of Abbott’s generous paid parental leave scheme (courtesy of attacks from his own side on it), voters prefer the government’s scheme (34%) over Abbott’s scheme (24%), with 31% saying they prefer neither.
Given Abbott’s PPL scheme is significantly more generous than the government’s, the lack of support for the Coalition’s scheme is something of a mystery: the government is deeply unpopular and the Coalition is regarded as more competent on most issues, but nonetheless Abbott seemingly can’t give away money when it comes to parental leave. But the results give us a clue as to why this is: there’s a very strong level of support among Liberal voters for “prefer neither”. Whereas Labor voters strongly support the government’s scheme, and to a lesser extent Greens voters do as well, the opposition from Liberal voters that would normally balance that is missing. Instead, Liberal voters don’t like either Labor’s scheme or Abbott’s.
Whether this is opposition from conservatives who don’t like parental leave at all, or who dislike the fact that at-home mothers won’t benefit from it, isn’t clear, but the result is that support for Abbott’s scheme from the people who would normally support Abbott to the hilt is missing.
I would think a big reason for the low support for the co-alition’s PPL scheme is that very few people think they’d ever go ahead with it. While my anecdotal evidence is not in any way a meaningful poll, I know no-one who takes the co-alition at their word on their PPL policy. All the usual excuses not to act will be trotted out after the election etc.
It’s illogical for Abbott, Hockey et al to claim the country is mired in debt due to the government’s “chaos” while, in the next breath, proposing a money-guzzling PPL scheme. Particularly when it’s not the vote-bait Abbott imagined.
Peter E is onto it. It’s not written in blood, or whatever it is these days that Abbott regards as binding, so eventually he will be reluctantly persuaded that it cannot be implemented.
Abbott sole aim is to be PM. He’s not interested in policy, only strategy. He will propose anything he thinks will garner votes, regardless of cost or feasibility. Peter Evans and Andybob are correct – the future implementation of “policy” is as relevant to Abbott as a teenager thinking about funding their retirement.
I’ll have a go at trying to define why the policy isn’t popular. Not all women want children and there are many who have already had their children or are not of child bearing age. Men are eligible but it will be rare that they take it up although they will benefit if their partner has a child.
The Party itself doesn’t like it. It’s against the platform they’re running on, against their economic policy to return to surplus and confuses their message. It’s a sign of Abbott’s instablity and one man against the party approach, which troubles them. Some Liberal voters don’t like it, it’s not at all what they consider core policy.
Those who dislike “middle class welfare” and/or indeed welfare of any kind don’t like it. They may feel that those with families are getting too much while those who are childless and particularly singles have very little attention paid to them. They may feel as if they are subsidising election bribes.
Those on lower incomes or those who pay the most taxes are going to wonder why women on higher incomes are being subsidised so generously.
Business doesn’t like it of course. Dyed in the wool Labor voters won’t like it. So what we have left are fervent Liberal or swinging voters of child bearing age and those others who support the policy because they think it’s good policy. But just because a woman does intend to have children doesn’t mean she doesn’t count the cost of subsiding others to do so for the rest of her life. Some may also be suspicious that they will be less likely to be hired, less likely to be promoted, and being so long away from work may find themselves replacing a temp who was doing very well at their usual job with the undercurrent of hostility that might involve. And with the Liberals history on work choices, some are just highly suspicious that they will be better off. Give with one hand, take with the other.