Q. Football clubs in Australia get their income in a variety of ways. For each of the following, please indicate if you think it is good or bad source of income for football clubs?
|Total Good||Total Bad||Very Good||Good||Bad||Very Bad||Don’t know|
|Raffles, auctions, competitions||89%||4%||38%||51%||3%||1%||6%|
|TV broadcasting revenue||87%||5%||37%||50%||4%||1%||8%|
|Poker machines in clubs||33%||57%||7%||26%||28%||29%||10%|
Merchandise sales (91%), corporate sponsorship (90%), raffles etc (89%) and TV broadcasting revenue (87%) are regarded to be the better sources of income for football clubs in Australia.
By a difference of 11 points, philanthropic donations and property investment are also regarded as good sources of income by the vast majority of respondents (76%).
Forty three (43) points behind those sources of income are poker machines in clubs, making them the least well regarded source of income for football clubs by a large margin. Whilst only 33% of respondents regard them as a good source of income, 57% see them as a bad source of income.
Q .From what you have read or heard, please select the sum of money from the list below that you think reflects the social cost of problem gamblers in Australia each year?
|Total||Support Pokies Reform *||Oppose Pokies Reform|
|*Aggregate figures have been used for Support/Oppose pokies legislation by combining strongly support with support and strongly oppose with oppose.|
The most common response amongst respondents was ‘don’t’ know’ (33%). Out of the figures from which respondents could choose, the most common response was $100 million (19%) and $1 billion (18%).
Fourteen percent answered correctly, estimating the social cost to be approximately $5 billion.
Those who support the pokies reform are more likely to guess the social cost to be high with 18% estimating it to be $5 billion and 11% estimating it to be $10 billion.
Those opposed to the reforms were less likely to estimate the social cost to be high, with only 9% believing it to be $5 billion and 5% believing it to be $10 billion.
 Productivity Commission, Inquiry Report, Gambling, No.50, 26 February 2010.
Q. Which statement best reflects your view:
|Total||Vote Labor||Vote Lib/Nat||Vote Greens|
|When a politician makes a statement or commitment they should stick to it no matter what||17%||12%||21%||16%|
|As situations change, it is reasonable that politicians change their positions||47%||65%||36%||61%|
|Politicians almost always lie – it’s naive to think otherwise||36%||23%||43%||23%|
The most common position taken by respondents is that ‘as situations change, it is reasonable that politicians change their positions’ (47%). Labor voters are the most likely to adopt this position.
Thirty six (36%) of respondents took the view that ‘politicians almost always like – it’s naïve to think otherwise’, and Coalition voters are the most likely to take this view.
Only 17% of respondents felt that ‘when a politician make a statement or commitment they should stick to it not matter what’, with Coalition voters the most likely to adopt this view.
Q. In which of the following situations do you think it is acceptable for a politician to lie:
The most acceptable situation in which respondents condoned lying is ‘where an individual’s safety is concerned’ (43%) and ‘when the information impacts on national security’ (42%). Twenty four (24%) regard it as acceptable to lie ‘when the information impacts on the nation’s economic interests’ and 20% see it as acceptable to lie ‘when new information about a situation comes to hand’.
The most unacceptable circumstance in which a politician can lie is ‘where a change of position is required for political considerations’ (81% not acceptable).
Q. If a Federal Election was held today to which party will you probably give your first preference vote? If not sure, which party are you currently leaning toward?
Q. If don’t know -Well which party are you currently leaning to?
sample size =1,871
|First preference/leaning to||Election
21 Aug 10
|4 weeks ago||2 weeks ago||Last week||This week|
21 Aug 10
|4 weeks ago||2 weeks ago||Last week||This week|
NB. The data in the above tables comprise 2-week averages derived the first preference/leaning to voting questions. Respondents who select ‘don’t know’ are not included in the results. The two-party preferred estimate is calculated by distributing the votes of the other parties according to their preferences at the 2010 election.
Q. Thinking about the Federal Budget – how much attention did you pay to the Federal Budget?
|Total a lot/some||66%||53%||52%|
|Total a little/none||31%||44%||45%|
Just over half (52%) of respondents said they paid a lot or some attention to the Federal Budget. This is much the same as the corresponding figure of 53% for last year’s budget.
Those most interested were Liberal/National voters (64%) and people aged 55+ (63%). Only 42% of respondents aged 18-34 paid a lot or some attention to the budget.
Q. Do you think the Federal Budget was good or bad for you personally?
Q. Do you think the Federal Budget was good or bad for Australian businesses?
Q. Do you think the Federal Budget was good or bad for the Australian economy overall?
|You personally||Businesses||The economy overall|
|Neither good nor bad||33%||44%||9%||31%||10%||25%|
Overall there was a less positive response to the 2011 budget than to the 2010 budget. The main differences were that respondents were less likely to rate the budget good and more likely to think it was neither good nor bad. The proportions who thought it was bad were similar to last year.
44% of respondents thought the Federal budget was nether good nor bad for them personally – 11% said it was good and 29% bad. The only substantial differences by demographics were that 51% of respondents aged 55+ thought it was nether good nor bad.
25% thought the budget was bad for business, 20% good and 31% said it was neither. 35% of Labor voters said it was good for business and 45% of Liberal/National voters said it was bad.
Respondents were split over whether it was good or bad for the economy overall – 27% said it was good and 29% bad. Labor voters split 50% good/9% bad compared to Liberal/National voters at 12% good/51% bad.
Q. Overall, from what you have read and heard, do you think the Australian economy is heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?
|Post budget 2010||Pre budget 2011||Post budget 2011||Vote Labor||Vote Liberal/ National||Vote Greens|
|The right direction||51%||45%||46%||74%||30%||46%|
|The wrong direction||25%||29%||29%||9%||49%||24%|
Nearly half (46%) the respondents think that Australia’s economy is heading in the right direction – 29% think it is heading in the wrong direction.
This was a little less positive than the post 2010 budget poll, but unchanged from the poll taken before the 2011 budget – which suggests that the budget has had no impact on overall perceptions of the economy.
74% of Labor voters, 30% of Liberal/National voters and 46% of Greens voters think the economy is heading in the right direction.
Read Essential's ongoing research on the public response to Covid-19.Download this week's Report
Two Party Preferred:
In this week's report:
- Performance of Scott Morrison
- Performance of Anthony Albanese
- Preferred Prime Minister
- Federal government response to Covid-19
- State government response to Covid-19
- Confidence in Labor government handling of Covid-19 pandemic
- Satisfaction with speed of Covid-19 vaccine rollout
- Party most responsible for slow vaccine rollout