Finding No. 5200 - This multi-mode Morgan Poll on Federal voting intention was conducted last weekend via SMS, Online and face-to-face interviewing on September 21/22, 2013 with an Australia-wide cross-section of 2,999 Australian electors aged 18+, of all electors surveyed 0.5% (down 1%) did not name a party.

The L-NP (50.5%, down 2.9% since the 2013 Federal Election) leads the ALP (49.5%, up 2.9%) on a two-party preferred basis according to the multi-mode Morgan Poll conducted last weekend (September 21/22, 2013) on Federal voting intention with an Australia-wide cross-section of 2,999 Australian electors aged 18+.

The L-NP primary vote is 43.5% (down 2.1%), well ahead of the ALP primary vote at 34% (up 0.6%).

Among the minor parties Greens support is 10.5% (up 1.9%) and support for Independents/Others is 12% (down 0.4%) – including within that support for the Palmer United Party at 4% (down 1.5%).

Analysis by Gender

Analysis by Gender shows since the election Women favour the ALP 52.5% (up 4% since the last Morgan Poll on the eve of the Federal Election) cf. L-NP 47.5% (down 4%) on a two party preferred basis and Men favour the L-NP 53.5% (down 2%) cf. ALP 46.5% (up 2%).

The Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating is now at 111.0 up 4.5pts since August 31/ September 1, 2013. Now 42% (down 1.5%) of Australians say Australia is ‘heading in the right direction’ and 31% (down 6%) say Australia is ‘heading in the wrong direction’.

The Morgan Poll surveys a larger sample (including people who only use a mobile phone) than any other public opinion poll.

The Morgan Poll was the most accurate of all polling companies at the 2013 Federal Election for the two-party preferred vote (L-NP: 53.5% cf. ALP 46.5%) – within 0.1% of the AEC result (L-NP 53.4% cf. ALP 46.6%) (Morgan Poll sample of 4,937 electors).

Labor Leadership: Anthony Albanese v Bill Shorten

A special Morgan Poll online survey question on the weekend found electors clearly preferred Anthony Albanese (41%) over Bill Shorten (23%) as Labor Leader while 36% can’t say.

Most importantly, ALP supporters clearly prefer Albanese as Labor Leader: Albanese (46%) cf. Shorten (32%). Supporters of the L-NP also prefer Albanese (38%) cf. Shorten (18%) as do Greens supporters: Albanese (48%) cf. Shorten (12%).

In addition, both Men: Albanese (43%) cf. Shorten (23%) and Women: Albanese (39%) cf. Shorten (22%) prefer Albanese and also electors in every State. Albanese has strongest support in NSW: Albanese (48%) cf. Shorten (20%) while Shorten performs most strongly in his home State of Victoria, but is still clearly behind: Albanese (36%) cf. Shorten (27%).

Gary Morgan says:

“The good news for new Prime Minister Tony Abbott is the continued increase in Consumer Confidence – now at 124.1 (up 1.2pts in a week), and now up for the seventh week in a row after Rudd called the Federal Election in early August. “However, Tony Abbott’s inclusion of only one woman in his Cabinet (Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop) ensures the Coalition’s honeymoon appears to be over before it even began with a large drop in support among women (L-NP: 47.5% (down 4% from the last Morgan Poll) cf. ALP: 52.5% (up 4%)) meaning the L-NP now has only a narrow lead (L-NP: 50.5% (down 2.9% since the Federal Election) cf. ALP: 49.5% (up 2.9%)) on a two-party preferred basis after the new Government was sworn in last Wednesday. The Rudd Cabinet prior to the Federal Election included six women – a record high. “The jump in support for the Greens (10.5%, up 1.9%) is no doubt a direct reflection of the new Government’s decision to abolish the Climate Commission as one of their first orders of business – an issue ignored in the recent Federal Election. “A special online Morgan Poll conducted over the weekend shows Anthony Albanese (41%) is clearly favoured among Australian electors to take over the Labor leadership rather than Bill Shorten (23%) while 36% can’t say. Albanese is widely expected to win the vote among rank-and-file ALP members, while Shorten is favoured to win the caucus vote. However, Shorten’s image amongst many electors is tainted by his role in the demise of two Prime Ministers.”

Electors were asked: “If an election for the House of Representatives were held today - which party will receive your first preference?”

Visit the Roy Morgan Online Store to browse our range of Voter Profiles by electorate, detailed Voting Intention Demographics Reports and Most important Political Issue Reports (all 150 electorates ranked by an issue).

Finding No. 5200 - This multi-mode Morgan Poll on Federal voting intention was conducted last weekend via SMS, Online and face-to-face interviewing on September 21/22, 2013 with an Australia-wide cross-section of 2,999 Australian electors aged 18+, of all electors surveyed 0.5% (down 1%) did not name a party.





Better Labor Party Leader: Anthony Albanese v Bill Shorten

Electors were asked: “If you were a Labor Party voter and helping to choose the Labor leader for the next Federal Election, who would you prefer: Anthony Albanese or Bill Shorten?”

Electors 18+ Analysis by Region & State Sep 21/22,

2013 Capital Cities Country Areas NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS % % % % % % % % % Albanese 41 40 43 48 36 37 41 40 47 Shorten 23 23 22 20 27 22 22 15 24 Albanese lead 18 17 21 28 9 15 19 25 23 Can’t say 36 37 35 32 37 41 37 45 29 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100





Electors 18+ Analysis by Sex & Age Sep 21/22,

2013 Men Women 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ % % % % % % % % Albanese 41 43 39 33 30 38 44 52 Shorten 23 23 22 20 15 26 22 23 Albanese lead 18 20 17 13 15 12 22 29 Can’t say 36 34 39 47 55 36 34 25 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100





Electors 18+ Analysis by Federal Voting Intention Sep 21/22,

2013 ALP L-NP Greens Palmer Katter Others % % % % % % % Albanese 41 46 38 48 56 14 19 Shorten 23 32 18 12 10 15 42 Albanese lead 18 14 20 36 46 (1) (23) Can’t say 36 22 44 40 34 71 39 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100





Electors were then asked: “And why did you say that?”

Electors who preferred Anthony Albanese often mentioned Shorten’s role in the demise of former Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, Shorten’s strong links to the unions, and also his links to the Governor-General as well as Albanese’s better policy expertise, experience and personality.

“Albo seems to be a bloke who believes in something.”

“I believe he is more believable and Shorten is only in it for his own personal gain.”

“I think he would be more inclusive and consultative as leader.”

“Albanese is far more progressive.”

“So far Albo is talking less ‘crap’.”

“He will take the fight to the Coalition.”

“He has a better sense of humour and appears more down-to-Earth.”

“Albo has a stable head and would fight for the working class.”

“He is steadier, less selfish, has loyalty to labour ideals and not just in it for personal glory.”

“Albanese is a star performer for the ALP in the House of Reps etc. Shorten hasn’t got the experience.”

“He seems a more honest straight-forward man to Shorten, who runs to whatever side he can to stay afloat. Shorten is under-handed.”

“Bill Shorten was behind the downfall of both Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. He can’t be trusted and is disloyal.”

“Bill Shorten seems to have a bob each way on a lot of things.”

“Shorten seems to be a bit devious and opportunistic.”

“Bill Shorten has no principles, just a ‘whatever it takes’ politician.”

“Shorten is a bit devious and opportunistic.”

“Albanese is not a factional power-broker. He comes across as more genuine.”

“Shorten is part of the reason Labor is in its current mess.”

“Because of Bill Shorten’s history as a factional leader and a back-stabber of two Prime Ministers.”

“Bill Shorten played a part in the demise of two Labor Leaders and so is more interested in power than party.”

“Bill Shorten is a backstabbing liar. He stabbed Kevin Rudd in the back, then he stabbed Gillard in the back (although she deserved it).”

“Albo hasn’t knifed two Prime Ministers in the back. Remember Hitler was a short leader.”

“Albo is the best option because Shorten was involved in the previous leadership disasters.”

“Shorten is crude and not trustworthy.”

“Bill is out for himself and has already stabbed two sitting Prime Ministers in the back.”

“Albanese is from the left faction and is a man of the people.”

“Shorten is a trouble-maker and only interested in himself and is directly responsible for the last four years of unstable Government.”

“I don’t trust Shorten.”

“Because the Liberals will bash the union line if Shorten is leader.”

“I don’t like the unions involved in politics and Bill Shorten is a union man.”

“He isn’t as committed to the unions.”

“Bill Shorten proved he isn’t loyal to anyone.”

“Bill Shorten has back-stabbed too many times.”

“Bill Shorten is a unionist and I wasn’t happy with the way he treated Julia Gillard.”

“I think Bill Shorten is grumpy, humourless and still a union man.”

“He has more experience and is less tied to the unions.”

“Bill Shorten has a conflict of interest with the Governor-General.”

“I am personally not enraptured by either, but I don’t think the links Shorten and the Governor-General are healthy.”

“Shorten’s mother-in-law is the Governor-General with the power in special circumstances to put the Leader of the Opposition in power. He should be disqualified from being Leader of the Opposition while she is Governor-General.”





Electors who preferred Bill Shorten said they liked his character, which is calm and measured, including in a crisis – like the Tasmanian Beaconsfield mining disaster several years ago, and that he pays attention to policies and detail, he’s a good speaker and a polished media performer.

“I believe he is more erudite.”

“He is in my opinion more of a working-class man.”

“He has a more composed demeanour.”

“He comes across as a sincere person who wants to do the right thing by the Australian people.”

“He is stronger on policy.”

“Just personal preference based on nothing more concrete than his gravity compared to Albanese’s levity. I don’t think the current situation is the least bit amusing.”

“I saw him on Q&A and he seemed ok.”

“I like the way he conducts himself.”

“Shorten is smarter.”

“Both are good, but Shorten is the better communicator.”

“He appears to be a better leader and more suited as a Prime Minister.”

“Shorten comes across as more professional and sensible.”

“I was impressed with Shorten’s manner and honesty during the previous Labor Government.”

“He seems more intelligent.”

“Shorten is really calm and controlled in some of the worst situations.”

“Because I don’t trust Albanese.”

“Anthony attacks the personal and doesn’t discuss policy.”

“Shorten seems to be more of a gentleman.”

“Shorten is a more polished performer.”

“I think Bill is a clever and astute politician.”

“Shorten has the ‘killer’ instinct. I am not sure that either candidate isn’t there simply for the kudos.”

“He seems more progressive, but I’m not really sure.”

“Shorten appears to think before he speaks.”

“Bill puts more thought into what he is going to say and doesn’t seem to be a grandstander.”

“I think Shorten would better reflect my views.”

“Shorten is more of a leader and less of a pit bull.”

“Shorten is not an attention seeker.”

“Shorten supports disability care.”

“I am confident in Shorten’s ability to compete with Tony Abbott.”

“Shorten’s long-term fight for worker’s rights.”

“I think Shorten has credibility and would present as a more competent leader.”

“I believe Shorten has a more rounded knowledge of what the country needs.”

“Bill Shorten, although coming from a background of unions, has a better presence, seems calmer and would be a better representative when dealing with other countries.”

“Shorten comes across better without grinding on my nerves.”

“Albanese is a more modest performer. Shorten I think would be more able to take it to Abbott and be more unifying for Labor.”

“Shorten is smart, a good speaker, and gets his message across in a succinct and understandable way.”

“He has a proven track record and will do what is necessary.”

“He seems like an honest, decent man.”

“Shorten’s public impression is more Prime Ministerial in manner. He has a good policy brain.”

“He speaks the policies well. He is very convincing.”

“Anthony has no respect for the people of Australia.”

“Shorten seems better than Anthony. I don’t really like Anthony much – he doesn’t appeal to me.”

“Shorten is a man with a conscience and he did an amazing job at the mine disaster in Tasmania a few years ago. He hasn’t lived a privileged life-style.”

“Because of the way he handled in the mine incident in Tasmania.”

“His demeanour and ability during the Tasmanian mine disaster.”





Electors who answered can’t say often mentioned that neither candidate had credibility, or were that well-known with stated policy positions. Some also mentioned they would prefer someone else for the role, or that both men were unsuited to the role because of various character defects.

“I have yet to hear the policies/ vision of each of the candidates.”

“Because I don’t know enough about their characters or beliefs.”

“I don’t like either of them.”

“I don’t know enough about either of them.”

“Not fully sure of their merits, I would need to investigate both further.”

“They are both unionist wankers.”

“I support Tanya Plibersek for ALP leader.”

“Well, I would love to see a woman in that role if there is an able one, but hey, that’s not likely so can’t see the difference with the men.”

“Not sure of the long-term viability of either man – would like to know what their plan for the party’s direction is.”

“Because I don’t think either of them are right for the job, I would prefer Tanya Plibersek.”

“Neither person is a valid candidate.”

“I think they are all hopeless and they still haven’t come to terms with the fact the Australian people don’t want them and are incomplete denial of the huge mess they have left behind them.”

“They’re both horrible.”

“Bill Shorten has lost credibility and I don’t think Anthony has any.”

“For me, Shorten appears to be the better person, except that he’s the ‘King of Spin’. Albanese’s a bit like an angry dog. He’s almost too aggressive.”

“I wouldn’t vote for Labor at all in their current state. The party needs to take a long hard look at themselves and the disgrace they have been over the past few years.”

“Because they are both hopeless, selfish men and should just disappear.”

“I don’t know them, nor am I interested in the party with all its bickering, back-fighting and dumping of leaders.”

“Neither of them has the presence, vision or skills of a Kevin Rudd or Malcolm Turnbull.”

“I don’t know enough about their skills and what they believe is for the good of Australia.”

“Neither can be trusted to have Australia in their best interests.”

“I don’t have much confidence with either.”

“Neither are suitable leaders.”

“Both are incompetent. Both are liars who stabbed Julia Gillard.”

“Neither of them has the interest of Australia at heart and they only want to feather their own pockets.”

“Because they are both poor leaders, never heard of them until now. Where were they and what were they doing?”

“Neither are interesting and Labor is run by faceless men who have an agenda that overrules the leader.”

“Neither are any good and they are both corrupt and untrustworthy, disloyal and in it for their own benefit and not for the country.”

“I don’t think I know enough about either of them to make an informed decision.”

“It makes no difference, they will be in opposition for 10 years!”

“Shorten is a double turncoat and Albanese is a loud mouth with an eye to the main chance.”

“They are both falsely putting up a front of cordial harmony whilst trying to undermine/ backstab each other out of public view to become leader.”

“Both ultimately have the interests of the ALP in their mind in their bid for the leadership. I am unsure who best represents the party though.”

“I don’t care, both are equally incompetent.”

“The Labor Party needs new blood!”

“The Labor Party is a mess. My impression is that the same battles and in-fighting is still happening and both candidates are playing the same games and I personally find it hard to form an opinion.”





Federal Voting Intention Summary – House of Reps (%)

L-NP ALP The Greens Palmer United Katter Ind./ Others RECENT FEDERAL ELECTION RESULTS % % % % % % Election March 2, 1996 47.3 (8.6) 38.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 12.2 Election October 3^, 1998 39.5 (5.3) 40.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 18.3 Election November 10, 2001 43 (5.6) 37.8 4.4 0.0 0.3 13.5 Election October 9, 2004 46.4 (5.9) 37.6 7.2 0.0 0.3 8.5 Election November 24, 2007 42.1 (5.9) 43.4 7.8 0.0 0.3 6.4 Election, August 21, 2010 43.6 (3.7) 38.0 11.8 0.0 0.3 6.3 Election, September 7, 2013 45.6 (4.3) 33.4 8.6 5.5 1.0 5.9 MORGAN POLL September 14/15 & 21/22, 2013 43.5 (2.5) 34 10.5 4 1.5 6.5

Note: ^ 1998 Federal election results have been updated to include results from the electorate of Newcastle supplementary election. The L-NP did not have a candidate contesting the electorate of Newcastle.





Federal Voting Intention Summary – House of Reps (%)

Two-Party Preferred Vote (%)

RECENT FEDERAL ELECTION RESULTS L-NP ALP % % Election, March 2, 1996 53.6 46.4 Election, October 3^, 1998 49 51 Election, November 10, 2001 51 49 Election, October 9, 2004 52.7 47.3 Election, November 24, 2007 47.3 52.7 Election, August 21, 2010 49.9 50.1 Election, September 7, 2013 53.4* 46.6* Final Pre-Election Morgan Poll – September 4-6, 2013 53.5 46.5 Analysis by Gender Final Pre-Election Morgan Poll – September 4-6, 2013 (Men) 55.5 44.5 Final Pre-Election Morgan Poll – September 4-6, 2013 (Women) 51.5 48.5

*The final two-party preferred result for the 2013 Federal Election is not currently available. This is the current figure provided by the AEC.

Preferences distributed

by how electors say they will vote Preferences distributed by how electors voted

at the 2013 election % % % % MORGAN POLL L-NP ALP L-NP ALP September 14/15 & 21/22, 2013 50.5 49.5 52.5 47.5

^ 1998 Federal Election results have been updated to include results from the electorate of Newcastle supplementary election. The L-NP did not have a candidate contesting the electorate of Newcastle. **Multi = Multi-mode interviewing conducted via combined methodology.

For further information:

Contact Office Mobile Gary Morgan: +61 3 9224 5213 +61 411 129 094 Michele Levine: +61 3 9224 5215 +61 411 129 093





Data Tables









Margin of Error

The margin of error to be allowed for in any estimate depends mainly on the number of interviews on which it is based. The following table gives indications of the likely range within which estimates would be 95% likely to fall, expressed as the number of percentage points above or below the actual estimate. The figures are approximate and for general guidance only, and assume a simple random sample. Allowance for design effects (such as stratification and weighting) should be made as appropriate.

Sample Size Percentage Estimate 40%-60% 25% or 75% 10% or 90% 5% or 95% 500 ±4.5 ±3.9 ±2.7 ±1.9 1,000 ±3.2 ±2.7 ±1.9 ±1.4 1,500 ±2.6 ±2.2 ±1.5 ±1.1 2,000 ±2.2 ±1.9 ±1.3 ±1.0





For further information:

Contact Office Mobile Gary Morgan: +61 3 9224 5213 +61 411 129 094 Michele Levine: +61 3 9224 5215 +61 411 129 093







