A majority of voters approve of the main measures in Labor’s third budget, although three in five think the Albanese government’s $300 electricity bill rebate should have been better targeted.
Those are the results of the latest Guardian Essential poll of 1,149 voters, which found a lukewarm reaction to the budget overall, with just over a quarter (27%) saying it would make a “meaningful difference” to their cost of living.
Labor and the Coalition remain neck-and-neck after Jim Chalmers’ third budget and Peter Dutton’s budget reply. In two party-preferred terms, the Coalition leads 47% to Labor’s 46%, with a further 6% undecided.
On primary votes the Coalition leads 34% to Labor’s 31%, with 10% planning to vote for the Greens and 8% for each of One Nation and independents.
Most respondents (56%) reported paying “a little” or “a lot” of attention to Tuesday’s budget, which contained a $7.8bn cost-of-living package, including a $300 electricity rebate for every household and a freeze on the price of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines.
Voters approved of all the budget’s major measures: the freeze on the cost of prescription medicine (76% in favour); the $300 rebate (66%); increasing commonwealth rent assistance (58%); capping the number of new international students (56%); and investing in renewables, hydrogen and critical minerals through the Future Made in Australia plan (53%).
Despite that, voters were sceptical of the budget’s impact on their finances, with just 6% saying it “definitely” would and 21% saying it “probably” would make a meaningful difference to their cost of living. A total of 64% said it would not, while 10% were unsure.
Three in five respondents (60%) said that “only low and middle income households” should receive the energy rebate, and about a third (35%) agreed with Labor that “all households” should get it, while just 5% said none should.
The budget papers reveal net migration is projected to fall from 528,000 last year to 395,000 this financial year, then 260,000 in 2024-25. Dutton has claimed the Coalition will aim for net migration of just 160,000.
When told that the migration intake is set to halve, respondents were asked if this would make a difference to housing affordability. A majority (57%) thought this would be “very” effective (15%) or “somewhat” effective (42%). A total of 34% said it would not be effective and 8% were unsure.
Before the budget Labor released its future gas strategy, which respondents were told “sets out that it will approve new gas projects in the medium to long term (ie to 2050 and beyond)” and states that gas will play “an important part in Australia’s transition to net zero emissions”.
After being told that, 44% supported the approval of new gas projects in Australia. Just 17% opposed them, while 39% said they neither supported nor opposed them.
Almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents agreed that “we need a long-term gas supply for times when renewables are unable to meet energy supply demands”, compared with just a quarter (26%) who said “allowing the gas industry to continue only delays the transition to renewables and means we will not meet our emissions reduction targets”.
Respondents had a fuzzy view of the trajectory of the economy. Many correctly identified that interest rates had gone up in the past 12 months (65%) and almost half (47%) said the same of unemployment. But two-thirds said inflation was on the rise (67%), despite the fact it is slowing, underscoring the risk to the Albanese government if the budget is seen to make the Reserve Bank’s job harder by adding to inflation.
Respondents were asked to nominate their top three perceived causes of inflation. The most popular answer was “price gouging by big businesses”, which placed in the top three among 58% of respondents.
This was followed by the after-effects of pandemic spending and Reserve Bank interest rate rises (both on 49%), “spending and policy decisions of the Albanese government” (42%) and “global events such as the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East” (40%).
Almost half (48%) of respondents wanted more government intervention, compared with those who said the level of intervention was about right (36%) or should be less (16%).
A majority of respondents supported taxing the very rich (63% were in favour), capping negatively geared properties (59%) and inheritance tax on the very rich (56%).
