Government funding for gas pipelines
Q. To what extent do you support or oppose the use of taxpayer money to fund a gas pipelines in Australia?
| Total | Gender | Age Group | Federal Voting Intention | |||||||
| Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-54 | 55+ | Labor | Liberal + National | Greens | TOTAL: Other | ||
| Strongly oppose | 13% | 15% | 11% | 13% | 16% | 11% | 17% | 7% | 29% | 19% |
| Somewhat oppose | 14% | 14% | 14% | 17% | 15% | 10% | 17% | 11% | 22% | 11% |
| Neither support, nor oppose | 32% | 27% | 37% | 36% | 28% | 33% | 34% | 29% | 29% | 36% |
| Somewhat support | 16% | 19% | 13% | 10% | 17% | 20% | 12% | 24% | 8% | 15% |
| Strongly support | 11% | 17% | 5% | 10% | 10% | 13% | 9% | 16% | 7% | 9% |
| Unsure | 14% | 9% | 19% | 14% | 14% | 14% | 10% | 13% | 6% | 11% |
| TOTAL: Oppose | 27% | 28% | 26% | 29% | 31% | 21% | 35% | 18% | 51% | 29% |
| TOTAL: Support | 27% | 36% | 18% | 21% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 40% | 15% | 24% |
| Base (n) | 1,068 | 513 | 555 | 317 | 370 | 381 | 313 | 447 | 96 | 118 |
- Overall, support and opposition towards government funding for gas pipelines is equal (both 27%). 32% neither support nor oppose and 14% are unsure on the issue
- Support for funding is highest among men (36%), those aged over 55 years (33%) and Coalition voters (40%).
What can we learn from the Greeks?
It’s increasingly clear that Greece’s woes are partly to blame on its public pension system — over generous, over subscribed and now underfunded.
Like the rest of the western world, Australia also has an ageing population and some sections of the population are reliant on the government pension.
James Coyle from AustralianSuper tells 3Q that our superannuation system keeps our economy strong and individuals protected. Super is not only a tax-effective way to save, it also reduces pressure on government funding because less people are solely reliant on the age pension.
Although our super savings took a beating in the GFC, superannuation savings of $1.3 trillion helped Australia through the GFC via indirect investment to help Australian companies raise equity and lessen dependence on the overseas debt market.
Spending Funds for Flood Damage
Q. If the Government introduces a levy to pay for flood damage, which of the following should the Government spend those funds on?
| Yes | No | Don’t know | Vote Labor | Vote Lib/Nat | Vote Greens | ||
| Replace and repair infrastructure – e.g. roads, rail, power, telecommunications | 92% | 3% | 5% | 92% | 95% | 95% | |
| Replace and repair public buildings – e.g. schools, hospitals | 92% | 3% | 5% | 93% | 93% | 95% | |
| Compensate individuals who were not insured for flood damage | 35% | 42% | 22% | 37% | 35% | 34% | |
| Compensate businesses for lost income | 36% | 43% | 20% | 40% | 36% | 33% | |
| Compensate farmers for lost income | 58% | 26% | 16% | 61% | 58% | 54% | |
| Compensate workers for lost wages | 43% | 37% | 20% | 50% | 41% | 36% | |
| Compensation for all people affected – regardless of whether or not they have insurance cover | 30% | 51% | 19% | 32% | 31% | 23% |
Respondents overwhelmingly supported using Government funding for rebuilding infrastructure and public buildings (92%).
A majority (58%) also supported compensating farmers for lost income. However, they were more likely to oppose compensating businesses or those who were not insured for flood damage. Only 30% supported Government funding for anyone affected.
There were relatively small differences between voter groups – except for compensating workers for lost wages which 50% of Labor voters supported compared to 41% of Lib/Nat voters and 36% of Greens voters.
COVID-19 RESEARCH
Read Essential's ongoing research on the public response to Covid-19.
Essential Report
Sign up for updates
Receive the Essential Report in your inbox.Essential Tags
Recent Comments
