Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the job <NAME> is doing as State Premier?

[Only asked in NSW, VIC, QLD, SA and WA]

• Approval of Dominic Perrottet among those in NSW is at 47%, however as he has just been in the job for a short period of time, there is a large number who are as yet unsure of him (25%). Last October, approval of Gladys Berejiklian was at 67%.
• Approval of Daniel Andrews among Victorians is at 52%, around the same level as last October (54%) but a drop from the level last November (65%).
• Approval of Steven Marshall among South Australians remains at 61%, around the same level as last November (60%).
• Approval of Annastacia Palaszczuk among Queenslanders and Mark McGowan among Western Australians remain at similar levels as last October at 66% and 82% respectively.

• Nearly half (46%) of Western Australians strongly approve of the job Mark McGowan is doing as State Premier.
• About a quarter (26%) of Queenslanders strongly approve of the job Annastacia Palaszczuk is doing as State Premier.
• While 20% of Victorians strongly approve of the job Daniel Andrews is doing as State Premier, about a quarter (24%) strongly disapprove.
• A quarter (25%) of those in NSW are unsure about the job newly appointed State Premier Dominic Perrottet is doing.

Q. Overall, how would you rate the federal government’s response to the Covid-19 outbreak?

• 46% of people rate the federal government’s response to the Covid-19 outbreak as quite good or very good (similar to earlier this month), with 31% rating it as quite poor or very poor.
• The only state to record an improvement in positive rating of the federal government’s handling of Covid-19 is South Australia (52% from 46% earlier in October).

Q. How would you rate your state government’s response to the Covid-19 outbreak?

• Positive rating of the state government’s response to Covid-19 in NSW continues to increase (now 57%, up from 40% in August).
• Compared to earlier this month, positive rating has remained at a similar level in SA and WA, and decreased in VIC and most notably in QLD (now 59%, from 68%). This is the lowest rating in Queensland this year.

Q. Do you think the levels of immigration into Australia over the past ten years have been…?

• Significantly fewer people now think levels of immigration into Australia over the last decade have been too high, compared to January 2019 and prior.
• Over a third (37%) of people now think immigration levels are too high, compared to 56% in January 2019, 64% in April 2018 and 50% in October 2016.
• This is driven by an increase of people who think immigration levels are about right (36% from 26% in January 2019).
• 16% of people now think immigration levels are too low.

• Those aged over 55 are more likely than younger cohorts to think immigration levels are too high (43% to 38% of those aged 35-54, and 29% of those aged 18-34). A quarter (26%) of those over 55 think the levels are much too high.
• Among voters, Coalition voters (44%) are most likely to think immigration levels are too high, followed by minor and independent party voters (41%). Greens voters (19%) are least likely to think this. About a third (34%) of Labor voters think the levels are too high.

Q. The NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet recently called for an increase in Australia’s immigration levels.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

• Older cohorts are more likely to agree than younger groups that increasing immigration levels would add more pressure on the housing system and infrastructure. 70% of those over 55 agree with this statement, compared to 65% of those aged 35-54 and 54% of those aged 18-34. Agreement with this statement is consistent across voters.
• Men are more likely than women to agree that immigration is vital for Australia’s business and economy (54% to 48% respectively).
• Minor and independent party voters are least likely to agree that immigration is vital for Australia’s business and economy (39%), that increasing immigration levels would equip businesses with the skilled workers they need (42%), and help to address Australia’s growing skills shortages as the population ages (39%).

• Those who think immigration levels have been too high in the past decade are less likely to agree with the benefits and business need for immigration.
• Those who think immigration levels have been too low are more likely to agree that immigration is vital for business and economy (74% to 60% ‘about right’ and 34% ‘too high’), and that increasing immigration levels would equip businesses with the skilled workers they need (77% to 58% and 34%), and help to address Australia’s growing skills shortages as the population ages (75% to 56% and 34%).
• Those who think the levels are too high are more likely to think increasing levels would add more pressure on the housing system and infrastructure (76% to 47%).

Q. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about temporary work visas in Australia?

• There is high agreement with the need to provide equivalent pay and conditions to migrant workers. 72% of people agree temporary work visas should be used to cover genuine skills shortages, not to provide cheap labour and 67% agree that all workers in Australia should be entitled to the same pay and working conditions.
• There is less consensus as to whether temporary work visas have been used to drive down wages and working conditions in Australia. Just 47% agree with this statement, and a further 37% neither agree nor disagree.

• Those aged over 55 are more likely than younger cohorts to agree that temporary work visas should be used to cover genuine skills shortages, not to provide cheap labour (85% to 65% younger cohorts), everyone who works in Australia should be entitled to the same pay and working conditions regardless of their visa status (75% to 62%), and temporary work visas are essential for Australian businesses to fill skills shortages (66% to 56%).
• Minor/independent party voters are less likely than other voters to agree that temporary work visas should be used to cover genuine skills shortages, not to provide cheap labour (64% to 75% all other voters), everyone who works in Australia should be entitled to the same pay and working conditions regardless of their visa status (55% to 71%), and temporary work visas are essential for Australian businesses to fill skills shortages (46% to 64%).

• Irrespective of views towards immigration, the majority agree temporary work visas should be used to cover genuine skills shortages, not to provide cheap labour.
• While overall there is majority agreement that everyone who works in Australia should be entitled to the same pay and working conditions regardless of their visa status, those who say the levels of immigration have been too low are more likely to agree with this than those who think the levels have been about right or too high (78% to 67% and 64% respectively).
• Those who say the levels of immigration have been too low are also more likely to agree that temporary work visas are essential for Australian businesses to fill skills shortages (71% to 66% and 52%).
• Those who say immigration levels have been too high are more likely to agree temporary work visas have been used to drive down wages and working conditions in Australia (56% to 44% ‘about right’ and 49% ‘too low’).

Q. Which of the following is closer to your view of the federal government’s role in relation to employment and jobs?

• More people think the federal government’s role is to invest behind local industries to create more jobs than to reduce taxes and red tape so businesses can employ more workers (44% to 35%). 21% are unsure on their preferred role.
• Men are more likely than women to think the federal government’s role is to reduce taxes and red tape so businesses can employ more workers (42% to 29%).
• Coalition voters are also more likely to agree with this viewpoint than all other voters combined (44% to 32% respectively).

Q. Which of the following approaches to acting on climate change and reducing emissions do you think will have the most positive long-term effect on jobs?

• About a third (35%) think setting a more ambitious emissions reduction target for 2030 will have the most positive long-term effect on jobs, while a further 29% think setting a net zero target for 2050 would be best for jobs.
• 14% think not setting any targets for 2030 or 2050 is best for jobs, and 22% are unsure.
• Labor voters (43%) and Greens voters (55%) are most likely to think a more ambitious 2030 target will have the most positive long-term effect on jobs.
• Minor/independent party voters (24%) and Coalition voters (21%) are most likely to think not setting any targets would be best for jobs.
• Those aged 18-34 are more likely than older cohorts to think setting a net zero target for 2050 is best (37% to 29% of those aged 35-54 and 23% of those over 55).