Well now the Chicken Little's of Australian journalism have moved on to other topics, here is another perspective on that latest Newspoll

 

Well the headlines this week ran a particular pessimistic line.....

Fresh Newspoll suggests Labor spiralling towards minority government at next election in worst result since Voice defeat [Sky News, 25.03.24]

Newspoll: Labor on slide as new year reset fades [The Australian, 25.03.24]

Newspoll: Worst result for Albanese gov since referendum backlash [The Courier Mail, 25.03.25]

Federal Labor's Popularity Slips In Latest Newspoll [10Play, 25.03.25]

Voters’ harsh verdict on Labor as cost of living bites [The Daily Telegraph, 25 March 2025]

So what exactly did the latest Newspoll survey results show?

NEWSPOLL, Sunday 24 March 2024

Newspoll was conducted by YouGov from 18-22 March using a survey pool of 1,223 participants.

Federal Primary Voting Intent:

ALP 32 (-1)

L/NP Coalition 37 (+1)

Greens 13 (+1)

One Nation 7 (+1)

Other 11

Federal Two Party Preferred Prediction:

ALP 51 (-1)

L/NP Coalition 49 (+1)

Click on image to enlarge

Better Prime Minister:

Albanese 48 (+1)

Dutton 34 (-1)

Approval Rating

Anthony Albanese: Approve 44 (+1) Disapprove 51 (0)

Peter Dutton: Approve 37 (0) Disapprove 52 (+1)

By way of context

On 24 March 2024 the nation was 61 weeks out from the last possible date for next federal general election, 17 May 2025.

This 24 March the two party preferred outcome of 51-49 in Labor's favour mirrored past Newspolls on:

28 April, 5 & 12 May 2019

12 Jan, 23 Feb & 15 March 2020

25 April, 16 May & 27 June 2021.

In Newspoll on those same dates the Coalition had the higher primary vote on:

28 April, 5 & 12 May 2019

12 January, 23 February & 15 March 2020

25 April, 16 May & 27 June 2021.

 

With the 16 May 2021 Coalition primary vote lead being a 5 point advantage making it an identical voting intention & prediction poll with this week's 24 March 2024 poll.

At approximtely 61 weeks out from May 2022 federal election, Newspoll was showing a two-party preferred prediction outcome of 52-48 in Labour's favour and, a primary voting intention outcome of somewhere between 40-38 & 42-37 in the Coalition's favour by 2-5 points.

It would seem this is a road well travelled and this far out from an election gives no real indication of the mood of a national electorate in May 2025.

International Womens Day 2024: So how is female suffrage getting along in Australia?

 

United Nations banner

So how is female suffrage getting along in Australia?

After federation came into effect and the Commonwealth of Australia began its life in January 1901, the first federal parliament contained no women as elected representatives.

It wasn't until 1902 that Commonwealth Franchise Act established equal suffrage at a federal, allowing adult women the right to vote in federal elections and elect members to the House of Representatives and the Senate.

By 1903 women began to stand for federal election - as independents or as candidates for minor parties as neither the forerunners of the Liberal Party of Australia or the Australian Labor Party would support woen candidates.

It took another forty years before the first two women were elected - Enid Lyons, the Liberal MP for Darwin (Tas) and Dorothy Tagney Labor Senator for West Australia.

Both women entered a Parliament House which since its erection in 1927 had been totally devoid of toilets set aside for female members of parliament. [National Museum Australia, "First women in parliament", 2024]

For another forty years between 1946 to 1986 another 6 women MPs and 26 women senators came and went in the federal electoral cycles. A woefully small number. [Australian Parliament website, "Women parliamentarians in Australia 1921-2020", December 2020]

In May 2010 first federal Labor elected & then in August the national electorate endorsed the first female prime minister of Australia. In the federal government ministry, as at the end of June 2010, there were nine female ministers and parliamentary secretaries (representing 23% of ministers and parliamentary secretaries), including the Prime Minister The Hon Julia Gillard MP and a further three who were Cabinet members. Around 17% of shadow ministerial and parliamentary secretary positions were held by women [ABS, Measures of Australia's Progress, 2010]

However, it took until 2014 before women made up 26.7 per cent of the House of Representatives and 38.2 per cent of the Senate.

Now in 2024 the gender landscape in the Australian Parliament stands thus......

A total of 37 of the 78 Labor Government MPs in the Australian House of Representatives are women. That number represents 47.53 per cent of all those sitting on the government benches in the Lower House and 63.79 per cent of all federal women MPs in 2024.

A total of 17 of the 25 Labor Government senators in the Australian Senate are women. That number represents 68 percent of all those sitting on government benches in the Upper House and 40.7 per cent of all women senators in 2024.

Women in the Albanese Labor Government make up a combined total of 24 per cent of all MPs and Senators in the Australian Parliament. While women of all political persuasions comprise 44.44 percent of all parliamentarians sitting in the Australian Parliament in 2024. [Australia Parliament website, March 2024]

By December 2023 17,721,975 Australian citizens over the age of 18 years were enrolled to vote and the enrolment rate was 98 per cent. Historically overall voter turnout at elections is high. However, if the trend since 1996 holds, slightly more female registered voters are likely to turnout to vote than male voters at a federal general election.

In June 2023 the Australian estimated resident population numbered 26,638,544 individuals of which est. 50.35 per cent were female. [ABS, National state and territory population, June 2023]

It has only taken women 123 years to get to less than half the elected political representation their population demographic suggests they are entitled to expect.

And in the Australian Senate this week they were arguing over a difference of five minutes.......

How to shut down the Australian Senate in under 14 minutes, during an argument over a five minute difference between allotted speaking times OR one of the many ways members of parliament choose to waste Treasury funds.

Player Cheat Sheet:

Labor Senator Sue Lines for Western Australia, President of the Senate. 

Labor Senator Loiuse Pratt for Western Australia, Acting Deputy President of the Senate

Liberal Senator Maria Kovacic for New South Wales 

Labor Senator Helen Polley for Tasmania 

Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe for Victoria 

Liberal Senator Paul Scarr for Queensland

Labor Senator Murray Watt for Queensland.

Senate Hansard, 27 February 2024, pages 101-103:

Note: My yellow highlighting throughout the excerpt

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Pratt): Senator Polley, if you could just pause for a moment— Senator Kovacic?

Senator Kovacic: I've been waiting here for over an hour and 15 minutes, as the schedule has shifted around over and over.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you are seeking a point of order—

Senator Kovacic: It's five minutes—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. Senator Scarr was the first speaker when no-one jumped up before then. We immediately went into 10 minutes right from the outset. Some people spoke for less than 10 minutes, as a courtesy to the chamber. But under the standing orders anyone can now speak for 10, because that is what—

Senator Thorpe: We weren't told that by the last speaker—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon? Senator Thorpe!

Senator Thorpe: We weren't told that by the last speaker! We were told by the person—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, sit down now! You won't get the call at all unless you sit down now. Senator Scarr?

Senator Scarr: Acting Deputy President, my understanding was that we were going through the 10 minutes and then we were starting with the five minutes with Senator McCarthy. So, Senator McCarthy has spoken. Senator Sharma spoke. We're now onto Senator Polley. My understanding—and I think the Acting Deputy President who was in the chair indicated we were on five minutes—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, I understand what the President indicated. Senator McCarthy spoke for 10 minutes—

Senator Thorpe: No she didn't!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: and that is because she had agreement to move from the list to do a 10-minute speech. So, I'm just going according to the standing orders.

Senator Thorpe: We were told five minutes!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senators! It is a courtesy to the chamber—

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Stop! Stop interjecting, Senator Thorpe, and I will tell you what the rules are.

Senator Thorpe: Wake up, because you've been asleep in that chair, and I have a mother who lost a son to your system—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, sit down now!

Senator Thorpe interjecting —

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, you will come to order.

Senator Thorpe: Wake up! Wake up!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I've been listening intently to the speeches before me— 

Senator Thorpe: No, you have not—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Polley's speech on dementia and the speech on concussion, which I note you were taking a deep interest in because of your parliamentary work.

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Kovacic, I'm sure you're very glad you took a point of order! Please, both of you sit down and I will allow Senator Polley to continue. Senator Polley, you have the call.

Senator Thorpe: We were told five minutes. How can you as the chair change the rules? How can you come in and change the rules?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Polley has the call.

Senator Thorpe: How come all of us heard one thing and you heard something different?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, you have the call.

Senator POLLEY: I'd like—

Senator Thorpe: No. A point of order!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, what is your point of order?

Senator POLLEY: You're delaying it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Kovacic, you're on your feet. Senator Polley, my apologies. 

Senator Thorpe: Where's the President? Where's the President? Where's the President?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Kovacic, what's your point of order, please?

Senator Kovacic: I have been on my feet for quite some time—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand that.

Senator Kovacic: I'm ready to sit down. I don't think it's appropriate for to you reflect on whether I'm happy that I raised a point of order. I raised it because it was appropriate and we wanted to understand when we would be able to speak. I don't think that was too much for either of us to ask.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Kovacic, I will reflect on that as chair. Senator Thorpe?

Senator Thorpe: I'd like, respectfully, for your conduct to be reviewed by the President, who should be in the seat dealing with this issue right now because we are being done over by you and them.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: By all means. Senator Polley?

Senator Thorpe: Point of order, now that the President is in the chair—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, the way adjournment operates is by agreement. Senator McGrath made an ruling earlier because when we went to adjournment tonight there was not one senator on the five-minute list in the chamber, so he quite properly went to the 10-minute speakers and then reverted to the five-minute speakers. Senator Pratt has explained that. Senator Polley has the call. I'm going to give her the call. 

Senator Thorpe: A point of order. That was not properly explained [inaudible]—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, please resume your seat. I'm not entertaining any more points of order. Please resume your seat. I've ordered and the matter is finished with. I have been watching adjournment since it began.

Senator Thorpe: Of course you have, so you should know.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, resume your seat. I will order that you no longer be heard.

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, you will no longer be heard.

Senator Thorpe: Have you made that ruling?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley?

Senator POLLEY: I was about to conclude my remarks—

Senator Thorpe: Point of order: are you telling me that I can't be heard? Because I want to know. Is that right? Is that what's happening?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, I have ordered that you no longer be heard. Please resume your seat.

Senator Thorpe: I'm not going to leave this chamber. I will read now.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, please continue. 

Senator POLLEY: As I was saying, President, I was about to conclude my remarks on what I think—

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, please resume your seat.

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt?

Senator Watt: I ask that the Senate now be adjourned. Question agreed

Senate adjourned at 20:49 

Newspoll 2024: fourteen months out from the likely date of the next Australian federal election and the Coalition is limping along

 

The Australian, Newspoll, 25 February 2024:

Two Party Preferred Voting Intention January 2019 to February 2024

IMAGE: The Australian, 25.02.24

Click on image to enlarge

FEDERAL FIRST PREFERENCE VOTING INTENTIONS

Australian Labor — 33 (down 1)

Liberal-Nationals Coalition — 36 (no change)

The Greens — 12 (no change)

One Nation — 6 (no change)

Others — 13 (up 2)

FEDERAL TWO-PARTY PREFERRED VOTING INTENTIONS

Australian Labor — 52 (no change)

Liberal-Nationals Coalition — 48 (no change)

PREFERRED PRIME MINISTER

Anthony Albanese — 47 (up 1)

Peter Dutton — 35 (no change)

LEADER'S APPROVAL

Albanese:

Approve — 43 (up 1)

Disapprove — 51 (no change)

Dutton:

Approve — 37 (no change)

Disapprove — 51 (up 1) 

NOTE:

Results are based on the responses of 1,245 participants in the YouGov survey, which are weighted to be representative of the population by age, gender, education, AEC region, household income, weighting by past vote (Federal vote and Voice referendum). This Newspoll was published in The Australian on 25.02.24

At this point in time the expectation is that Australian will go to a federal general election sometime in May 2025, roughly 14 months away. 

Fourteen months out from the May 2022 federal election in the 21 February 2021 Newspoll, Labor's primary vote stood at 36 to the Liberal-Nationals Coalition's 42.

While Labor and the Coalition stood neck and neck on the two party preferred graph at 50 points.

At the actual general election on 21 May 2022 Labor won government with a House of Representatives count of 77 seats to the Coalition's 58 seats - with minor parties & independents holding 16 seats - giving the Albanese Government a one seat majority. The Newspoll of 13 May 2023 had posited a Labor win of 54 to the Coalition's 48.

Cartoons of the Week

Alan Moir

Mark David

David Rowe

Cathy Wilcox

Matt Golding

It appears that Peter Dutton's drive to label Labor's proposed amended Stage 3 Tax Cuts as "a betrayal" and his accusation that the PM was "lying to the public" have fallen on predominately deaf ears across the national electorate

The Australian's Newspoll of 4 February 2024 was published Monday 5 February.

This was the first Newspoll of 2024 after a seven week gap since previous polling in December 2023.

The published results are based on a survey of 1,245 voters who were surveyed between Wednesday, 31 January and Saturday, 3 February 2024.

PRIMARY VOTE

Labor (sitting federal government) — 34 (up 1)

Coalition (L-NP opposition) — 36 (no change)

The Greens — 12 (down 1)

One Nation — 7 (no change)

TWO PARTY PREFERRED

Labor — 52 (no change)

Coalition — 48 (no change)

PREFFERED PRIME MINISTER

Anthony Albanese (current incumbent) — 46 (no change)

Peter Dutton (current opposition leader) — 35 (no change)

Uncommitted — 19 (no change)

APPROVAL RATING

Albanese:

Approve 42 (no change)

Disapprove 51 (up 1)

Dutton:

Approve 37 (down 2)

Disapprove 50 (up 2)

PROPOSAL TO AMEND STAGE 3 TAX CUTS

IMAGE: via @GrogsGamut Click on image to enlarge

According to The Australian's Page One on 5 February, "Mr Albanese has said the tax cuts were aimed at Middle Australia. This was supported by the poll results, which showed that 43 per cent of 35- to 49-year-olds said they would be better off and 44 per cent of 50- to 64-year-olds agreeing they would benefit....

The Newspoll showed female voters were significantly more likely to support the tax cuts than men: 65-59 per cent.

Those aged between 50 and 64 were also the most supportive of the change"

The Australian Parliament resumed on Tuesday 5 January, with the government planning to introduce legislation to replace the stage three tax cuts with a new tax rate table

Hopefully the government's amendments will pass unopposed and unamended by the Liberal-Nationals Coalition.

If for no other reason than Morrison's Treasury Laws Amendment in 2019 will no longer survive to fulfil its unofficial alternative title and descriptions: “Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Relief So Working Australians Keep More Of Their Money But Not For A Really Long Time) Bill 2019” aka "a tax package that is both fiscally irresponsible and unfair", "unfair and unjust", "a con job" making "inequality worse".

Sources:

Australian Parliament, Hansard, June 2018 to July 2019

9 News, 25.01.24

The Daily Telegraph, 26.01.24

AAP General Newswire, 04.02.24

The Australian, 05.02.24

Ghost Who Votes (@GhostWhoVotes), 05.02.24

Grog's Gamut (@GrogsGamut), 05.02.24

Battle of the Political Opinion Polls November 2023

 

Two very different sources, two very different results, published two days apart - who does one believe?

Roy Morgan Research, Market Research Update, email, 28 November 2023:

Roy Morgan Poll on Federal voting intention shows support for the ALP recovering – up 3% points: ALP 52.5% cf. L-NP 47.5%

The ALP has regained the lead on 52.5% (up 3% on a week ago) ahead of the Coalition on 47.5% (down 3%) on a two-party preferred basis according to the latest Roy Morgan Poll on Federal voting intention conducted last week.

The result halts a run of three straight weeks of declines for the ALP.

On primary vote the Coalition is now on 35%, down 2.5% from a week ago, ahead of the ALP on 32%, up 2.5%. The Greens are unchanged on 13.5% and One Nation is on 5%, down 1.5%.

There has been a gain in support for Independents on 9%, up 2%, but a drop in support for Other Parties on 5.5%, down 0.5%.

The latest Roy Morgan Poll is based on interviewing a representative cross-section of 1,379 Australian electors from November 20-26, 2023.

The Australian, Latest Newspoll, 26 November 2023:

Newspoll Two Party Preferred results
10.02.19 to 25.11.23
Click on image to enlarge

Federal Primary Voting Intention:

ALP 31 (-4)

Coalition 38 (+1)

Greens 13 (+1)

One Nation 6 (no change)

Other 12 (+2)

Federal Two Party Preferred:

ALP 50 (-2)

Coalition 50 (+2)

Preferred Prime Minister:

Albanese 46 (no change)

Dutton 35 (-1)

Leaders Approval Rating:

Dutton: Approve 37 (no change) Disapprove 50 (no change)

Albanese: Approve 40 (-2) Disapprove 53 (+1)

As It Happened In The Australian Senate On Thursday 10 August 2023: a case of the biter bit

 

Having left it to the last day both the Upper House and Lower House chambers were sitting in August, to spring what the Opposition obviously thought was a clever raid on Labor's legion holding the Senate, the Liberals smugly alerted the media to their intention to save pharmacists across Australia from a non-existent threat. Rather swiftly the plan began to go awry.

However Opposition forces rallied. 

As Business of the Senate a postponement notice was promptly lodged ie., Notice of Motion No. 1 (to disallow government dispensing reforms making medicines cheaper for six million Australians) in the name of Shadow Minister for Health Liberal Senator Anne Ruston and others, seeking postponement to 4 September 2023.

Then the wheels spectacularly fell off the Liberal Party chariot......

The Guardian, extracts from Live News, 10 August 2023:

15.59 AEST

What happened in the Senate today

This is for those who have asked me what was going on with all that procedure because it was a bit to keep track of.

Yesterday the Coalition gave notice it was going to move a disallowance motion to stop the 60-day dispensing changes coming in from 1 September.

It had to be moved today, because the parliament doesn’t resume until 4 September, after the changes came into effect.

At one point, the Coalition thought it had the numbers to make this happen, or at least could spook the government into thinking it had the numbers to make it happen, and force the government to delay the start date itself.

Along came the Greens who said, actually, no thank you to the disallowance motion, we have been chatting to the government and they are bringing negotiations on the next community pharmacy agreement forward by a year and that is what we wanted.

So that meant the Coalition needed to get all the remaining crossbenchers on board to beat the government on numbers.

The government needed the Greens to all show up in the chamber and one other crossbench MP. Cue late night chats and Mark Butler emerges this morning on the interview circuit saying “watch what happens in the Senate, but we have had VERY PRODUCTIVE chats with the crossbench”.

Very productive chats in that context is “we have the support we need, but can’t say so officially”.

The Coalition, realising it is about to lose, then tried to delay the disallowance motion, pushing it into the next sitting.

Labor, who wanted it dealt with once and for all, decided, actually no, we ARE going to have that disallowance motion today, senate what do you think? And all the senators who were voting with Labor on the motion agreed, meaning it the Coalition couldn’t delay it.

BUT (continued in next post):

Updated at 16.15 AEST

16.03 AEST

How Labor 'adopted' the disallowance motion – and defeated it

(Continued from previous post)

It is very difficult to move another senator’s disallowance motion and shadow health minister Anne Ruston wasn’t moving it (because the Coalition wanted it delayed). Labor tried to force it, but couldn’t because it wasn’t their motion.

So in a bunch of boring procedural motions, Labor managed to de-couple the motion from Anne Ruston’s name, making it an orphan.

The poor little orphaned disallowance motion was sent into the senate orphanage as as a delayed motion to wait out question time, when SURPRISE, it was adopted by Labor senator Louise Pratt.

Before it even had time to see its new bedroom, Labor called to suspend standing orders so it could call it on for a vote, where it was once again centre stage, despite Liberal senator Simon Birmingham objecting very loudly.

But this time all the procedural ducks were in a row, the motion was in Pratt’s name, so Labor had control and a vote was called.

And the disallowance motion was decided in the government’s favour – 33 votes to 28.

Which means that the two-for-one prescriptions slated to begin on 1 September will go ahead, the disallowance motion is defeated and this probably won’t be an issue again until six months time when the next tranche of medications join the list.

We hope that little motion gets to live out its dreams in the hansard now.

Updated at 16.20 AEST

16.34 AEST

Opposition to try to disallow 60-day medicine move again in September

Bridget McKenzie, the Nationals leader in the Senate, has said the opposition will launch a further attempt to disallow the government’s 60-day pharmacy dispensing changes when parliament returns in September.

On Thursday, the Senate voted down a Coalition push to tear up Labor’s changes.

McKenzie, speaking to the ABC, said the opposition had already moved to try to disallow it again.

We have lodged this afternoon another disallowance for this mechanism. This highlights for the government that we are very very serious, it is not good enough to say is not going to have a negative impact, the people’s healthcare delivery and particularly in the regions won’t be impacted when it actually will.

Updated at 16.41 AES

The 60-day script dispensing reform is due to commence on 1 September 2023 and the Senate Chamber does not sit again until 4 September 2023.