Pre-Election Index

Introduction

Compare Club’s latest nationally representative survey of 1000 Australians uncovers how affordability, accessibility, and government interventions shape Australians’ views on essential services - including healthcare, education, transportation, childcare, climate change, and the economy. The findings highlight deep divides across age, income, gender, and geography, underscoring the financial pressures facing different groups.

For instance, younger Australians express greater concern over housing affordability, climate change, and education, while older Australians remain skeptical of public spending. Income disparities reveal the growing strain of cost of living on lower earners, while higher-income groups report mixed confidence in government policies. Regional differences across New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, and Western Australia further emphasize varying financial priorities.

Gender gaps also emerge, with women expressing heightened concern for childcare costs, healthcare access, and environmental policies - reflecting broader economic challenges. Across all demographics, Australians report widespread reliance on cars, dissatisfaction with mental health services, and skepticism about the effectiveness of government subsidies. These findings reinforce the need for targeted policies that improve financial security and affordability for all Australians.

Table of contents

Introduction 1

Voter Intentions Ahead of the Election 3

State-by-State Analysis 3

Voter Intentions by Age 3

Gender Disparities in Voting 3

The Impact of Income on Voter Preferences 4

Key Political Issues Shaping Voter Intentions 4

Voter Predictions for Upcoming Election 5

Energy Insights 5

Support for Government Investment in Solar Energy 5

Willingness to Pay More for Carbon-Neutral Products and Services 5

Perceptions of the 2024 $300 Energy Subsidy 5

Support for Government Investment in Nuclear Energy 6

Solar Panel Adoption and Savings 6

Financial Advice Insights 7

Accessing Financial Advice Through Superannuation 7

Impact of Price and Accessibility on Financial Advice Uptake 7

Superannuation & Retirement 8

Support for Early Access to Superannuation 8

Awareness of Early Access to Superannuation 8

Projected Superannuation vs Desired Superannuation 9

Housing Affordability & Situation 9

Concern About Housing Affordability 9

Housing Costs and Savings 10

Government Intervention in Housing Affordability 10

Current Housing Situation 11

Predictions of Home Ownership 11

The Economy 11

Confidence in the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) 12

Confidence in the Job Market 12

Job Insecurity Over the Past Two Years 12

Confidence in the Government’s Economic Management 13

Confidence in Cost-of-Living Improvements 13

Public Healthcare 14

Accessibility of Healthcare Services 14

Quality of Healthcare Services 14

Support for Medicare-Covered Dental Care via Higher Taxes 15

Preference for Bulk-Billing General Practitioners (GPs) 15

Perceptions of Mental Health Management 15

Primary concerns about the state of healthcare in Australia 16

Private Health Care 16

Ownership of Private Health Insurance (PHI) 16

Perceived Value of Private Health Insurance 17

Climate Change 18

Concern About Climate Change and Its Impacts 18

Environmental Issues and Voting Decisions 18

Climate-Related Insurance Claims 19

Concern About Insurance Policy Coverage 19

Education 20

Support for Higher Taxes to Invest in Education 20

Perceptions of HECS/HELP Debt Affordability 20

Transportation 21

Reliance on Cars 21

Government Subsidies and Electric Vehicle Adoption 22

Satisfaction with Public Transport 22

Willingness to Pay Higher Taxes for Public Transport Investment 23

Childcare 23

Current Childcare Subsidies 23

Willingness to Pay Higher Taxes for Childcare Subsidies 24

Voter Intentions Ahead of the Election

Our survey revealed that only 31.36% of Australians intend to vote for the Labor Party in the upcoming election. Another 29.74% plan to vote for the Liberal Party, while 14.55% favor the Greens, and 9.7% intend to vote for independent candidates. A significant 14.66% of respondents remain undecided.

State-by-State Analysis

The close competition between the two major parties becomes more nuanced when examined by demographics:

• New South Wales has the strongest support for the Liberal Party compared to any other state. It also boasts a sizable independent voter base, second only to Victoria.

• Western Australia shows the highest voter intention for Labor, despite having the largest proportion of undecided voters.

• Queensland surprisingly leads in support for the Greens, with 18.28% of respondents intending to vote for the party, the highest across all states.

Voter intention by age

Age plays a significant role in voting preferences:

• There is a positive correlation between age and support for the Liberal Party, with voters aged 55+ being the most likely to favor the Liberals. In contrast, only 7% of this age group supports the Greens.

• Younger voters, particularly those aged 18–24, overwhelmingly support the Greens, with 27% indicating their intention to vote for the party. In this age group, support for the Greens surpasses that of any other party.

Gender Disparities in Voting

Gender also influences voter intentions significantly:

• Women are 12% more likely to vote for Labor and 82% more likely to support the Greens compared to men.

• In contrast, 40% of men intend to vote for the Liberal Party, compared to just 23% of women. Men are also 34% less likely to be undecided than women.

The Impact of Income on Voter Preferences

Income levels show clear patterns in party support:

• High-income earners (over $200,000 annually) are closely split between the two central parties.

• Those earning $125,000–$199,000 lean toward the Liberal Party.

• Lower-income earners (under $30,000) display a strong preference for Labor and the Greens.

Key Political Issues Shaping Voter Intentions

Specific political issues also influence voting preferences:

• Renters Divide: Renters who are not actively looking to buy are significantly more likely to vote for Labor (32.27%) compared to the Liberals (17.25%). They are also more likely to support the Greens (16.61%) than the average voter (14.55%).

• Job Security: Respondents who have experienced job insecurity in the past two years are more likely to favor Labor (29.09%) than the Liberal Party (24.58%).

• Energy subsidy satisfaction: Those who strongly believe that the 2024 $300 subsidy for energy bills was insufficient are far more likely to vote liberal (36.65%) than labor (18.85%).

• Housing affordability: Those who believe that government intervention in housing affordability is insufficient are slightly more likely to vote for the liberal party (28.55%) as opposed to labour (26.91%) among the two major parties. They also are more likely to vote for the greens (17.4%) than the average Australian. This could be due to the fact that 55.64% of Australians are supportive of being able to Dutton's proposed legislation to access superannuation early in order to afford a property. 

• Superannuation knowledge & financial advice seeking: Those likely to vote labour report far higher awareness of the ways they can access superannuation early than those voting for the liberal party. Contrastingly, those who reported not wanting to access financial advice even if it was cheaper are far more likely to vote liberal (39.58%) than any other party. 

• Cost of living: Over 40% of those who believe that the cost of living will improve in 2025 intend to vote Labor. 

• Solar energy disillusionment: Those who are dissatisfied with their savings from existing solar panels are far more likely to vote liberal (37.37%) than any other party. 

Voter Predictions for Upcoming Election

Voter predictions for the elected party of the upcoming election are closely aligned with their voting intentions. That is, those that are 55+ who are more likely to vote Liberal, are also more likely to believe that Liberal will win the upcoming election. 

The only exception is in the 200k+ group, who while reporting to be split evenly across the two central parties, are far more likely to believe that the Liberal party will win the election. 

Energy Insights

Support for Government Investment in Solar Energy

Support for government investment in solar energy is overwhelmingly positive, with 72% of Australians agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, “I support government investment in solar.” However, 8.3% express some level of disagreement, with opposition concentrated among:

• Individuals earning $30,000–$45,000 annually (17.98% reporting disagreement).

• Australians aged 55 and older (17.5% reporting disagreement).

• Residents of New South Wales (13.12% reporting disagreement).

In contrast, young Australians aged 18–24 and those living in Western Australia (WA) and South Australia (SA) are the strongest advocates for solar energy investment.

Willingness to Pay More for Carbon-Neutral Products and Services

Despite strong support for solar investment, Australians are divided on paying more for carbon-neutral products and services. Key findings include:

• Older Australians (45+) and lower-income earners are the most resistant to out-of-pocket costs for green products and services.

• Men are 42% more likely than women to oppose paying extra, with 42% of male respondents disagreeing with the statement, “I am willing to pay more for carbon-neutral products and services.”

Perceptions of the 2024 $300 Energy Subsidy

Nearly half of Australians believe the 2024 $300 energy bill subsidy was insufficient in alleviating energy bill stress. Key groups expressing dissatisfaction include:

• NSW residents (58.51% reporting insufficiency).

• High-income earners (52%).

• Individuals earning $45,000–$75,000 annually (51%).

The only demographic reporting more sufficiency than insufficiency was Australians aged 35–44, with 37.5% finding the subsidy sufficient. These findings highlight the need for broader or more targeted financial support to address energy affordability concerns effectively.

Support for Government Investment in Nuclear Energy

Support for government investment in nuclear energy is far more divided compared to solar energy:

• 36.5% oppose investment, 31% remain neutral, and 32% support it.

• Support correlates positively with income, with 37% of high-income earners in favor compared to 28% of low-income earners.

• Opposition is strongest in WA, with 60% reporting disagreement.

• Gender differences are notable, with 42% of women opposing investment compared to 28% of men.

Solar Panel Adoption and Savings

Solar panel adoption remains significant, with 38% of respondents reporting solar panels installed at their properties. Adoption rates vary by income, age, and location:

• Income: Over 53% of high-income earners ($200,000+) have installed solar panels, compared to only 29% of low-income earners.

• Age: Solar panel ownership is highest among Australians aged 45 and older (63%), but younger homeowners aged 25–34 (62%) also show strong adoption rates.

• Location: Adoption is lowest in NSW (29%) and highest in Queensland (46%), followed by South Australia, WA, and Queensland, where rates exceed 43%.

However, satisfaction with solar panel savings varies:

• Only 18% of respondents reported savings exceeding expectations.

• 49% found savings met expectations, while 28% were disappointed.

• 5% experienced no savings or higher costs, with dissatisfaction highest among:

  • Residents of NSW and Victoria.

  • Individuals earning $75,000–$199,000.

  • Respondents aged 35–54.

In Western Australia, 12% of respondents reported no financial benefits, and 10% of those earning $45,000–$75,000 faced similar challenges, pointing to barriers that prevent some households from achieving the full economic potential of solar investments.

Financial Advice Insights

Accessing Financial Advice Through Superannuation

Respondents were asked about their level of agreement with the statement, “I will access financial advice made available through my superannuation fund.” The responses were mixed:

• 41.09% remained neutral, making neutrality the most common response.

• Approximately 37% expressed some level of support, while around 22% reported some level of opposition.

Income Levels played a significant role in shaping responses:

• Over 50% of those earning under $30,000 annually reported a neutral stance, with a similar trend seen among 40% of other lower-income earners.

• In contrast, over 40% of respondents earning $75,000 or more expressed support for accessing financial advice through their superannuation.

Impact of Price and Accessibility on Financial Advice Uptake

When asked about the statement, “Lowering the price will make me more likely to access financial advice,” responses indicated broad support:

• Close to 60% of respondents expressed some level of agreement, highlighting price as a key factor in decision-making.

• An additional 26% remained neutral, while around 14% expressed opposition to the idea.

Demographic Influences on Support for Lowering Costs:

• Age: A negative correlation was observed between age and willingness to access financial advice if prices were reduced:

  • 70% of respondents aged 18–24 expressed support.

  • Support dropped to 65% for those aged 35–44, 58% for those aged 45–54, and only 44% for those aged 55 and older.

• Income: Higher income groups showed the greatest likelihood of accessing financial advice if costs were lowered:

  • Over 69% of those earning $125,000–$199,000 annually expressed support.

  • Conversely, lower-income earners were more neutral, with 38% of those earning under $45,000 indicating they would not consider using financial advice services even if they became more affordable.

• Gender: Women were more likely than men to support the statement, with 62% of female respondents expressing agreement compared to 56% of male respondents.

Superannuation & Retirement

Support for Early Access to Superannuation

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for early access to superannuation across eight key areas: property purchase, dental work, debt repayments, supporting a family, medical treatment, payment towards HECS, payment towards education, and vehicle purchase.

• Medical treatment received the strongest support, with nearly 69% of respondents approving early access for this purpose.

• Property purchases garnered moderate approval at 55.39%, reflecting significant public backing.

• Vehicle purchases had the lowest support, with only 19.61% approval and 38.36% opposition.

Support for other areas was mixed:

• Dental treatment: 37.61% support.

• Debt repayment: 44.39% support.

• Supporting family members financially: 40.63% opposition.

• Paying for HECS debts: 42.89% opposition.

Overall, Australians are more inclined to support superannuation withdrawals for essential needs, such as medical expenses and home ownership, while discretionary or less urgent purposes face significant resistance.

Awareness of Existing Opportunities of Early Access to Superannuation

Respondents were also asked about their awareness of six key circumstances under which early access to superannuation is allowed: compassionate grounds, terminal medical conditions, severe financial hardship, temporary incapacity, permanent incapacity, and having a super balance below $200.

Key Findings:

Across all categories, a significant proportion of respondents were unaware of these provisions. This underscores the need for improved public education about the circumstances under which early access to superannuation is permitted.

• Highest Awareness:

  • Terminal medical conditions: 68.75% were aware of this option, though only 1.94% reported using it.

  • Permanent incapacity: 59.91% awareness, with 1.94% having accessed their super.

  • Severe financial hardship: 58.51% awareness, with 4.53% usage.

  • Compassionate grounds: 54.63% awareness, with 3.02% usage.

• Lowest Awareness:

  • Temporary incapacity: Only 38.04% were aware of this provision, and 1.19% had utilized it.

  • Super balances below $200: Just 22.84% were aware, with 1.83% having accessed their super for this reason.

Projected Superannuation vs Desired Superannuation

When asked to estimate their projected superannuation at retirement (excluding those already at retirement age), 30% of respondents anticipated having less than $100,000, while 36% projected under $500,000, and the remaining 34% estimated between $500,000 and $1,000,000. Notably, despite being an open numerical response, no respondent projected their superannuation to exceed $1,000,000. 

In contrast, when asked to estimate the superannuation amount required to retire comfortably, only 14.5% of respondents considered less than $100,000 to be sufficient. Over a third of respondents indicated they would need between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000 to feel financially secure in retirement. This stark disparity between expected and desired superannuation levels underscores concerns about inadequate savings and the potential challenges many Australians face in achieving a comfortable retirement.

Housing Affordability & Situation

“We’ve had to move to a different area and we’ve had to downsize the amount of bedrooms that we have and our children and our having to share bedrooms we’ve had to change our way of eating.”

• Female 41, Western Australia

Concern About Housing Affordability

Housing affordability remains a pressing concern for the vast majority of Australians, with nearly 80% expressing concern over the issue. Only 12.5% of respondents remained neutral, while just 8% reported some level of opposition. This widespread concern underscores the significance of housing costs as a national issue that transcends many demographic divides.

The data reveals that concern about affordability is not evenly distributed across all groups. Younger Australians aged 18–24 expressed the highest levels of concern (85.94%), reflecting the challenges this group faces in entering the housing market. Similarly, Western Australia emerged as a hotspot for anxiety, with 85.56% of residents reporting concern, potentially tied to rising property prices in the region. Other highly concerned groups include middle-income earners ($75,000–$125,000), of whom 83.44% expressed worry, and women, who reported concern at a rate of 82.26%.

Interestingly, even among those who own their homes outright, 65.61% still report concern about affordability, suggesting that the issue resonates beyond immediate personal circumstances. Moreover, 62.44% of these homeowners believe that government intervention is insufficient, hinting at a broader perception that housing affordability challenges require systemic solutions.

Housing Costs and Savings

The impact of housing costs on Australians’ ability to save is significant, with close to 67% of respondents agreeing that housing costs hinder their weekly savings. In contrast, 16% reported neutrality, and only 7% expressed disagreement. These findings highlight the pervasive strain that housing expenses place on financial stability across many demographics.

Younger Australians, particularly those aged 25–34, are the most affected, with 78% reporting that housing costs impact their ability to save. This may reflect the dual pressures of rising rents and the difficulty of saving for a home deposit. In stark contrast, only 40% of respondents aged 55 and older reported similar difficulties, reflecting a demographic that has largely exited the rental market or paid off mortgages.

Gender also plays a role, with 70% of women stating that housing costs impede their savings, compared to 61% of men. This disparity could stem from broader income inequalities or women’s higher likelihood of assuming caregiving roles, reducing disposable income. Geographically, most states reported similar levels of support, although South Australians expressed the least concern, with only 61% agreeing and many remaining neutral.

Government Intervention in Housing Affordability

When it comes to the government’s role in addressing housing affordability, public sentiment is overwhelmingly negative. Opposition to the statement, “The government is doing enough for housing affordability,” stood at 68%, making it the most common response. Only a small minority - less than 15% of any demographic group - expressed support, except for men, where support marginally rose to 15.58%.

The strongest dissatisfaction was reported by those living in New South Wales (70.92%) and Western Australia (72.22%), as well as younger Australians aged 18–24 (71.87%). Women (71.31%) and middle-income earners ($45,000–$75,000) also reported high levels of discontent. This widespread dissatisfaction suggests that housing affordability is seen as a critical issue where government action is falling short.

Interestingly, attitudes toward government intervention in housing affordability are closely tied to broader perceptions of governmental competence. Among those who believe the government is not doing enough, 62.54% lack confidence in the government’s ability to manage the economy, and 73.54% doubt its ability to address the cost-of-living crisis. Conversely, those who believe the government is doing enough tend to view it more positively, with nearly half expressing confidence in its economic management and its ability to handle cost-of-living challenges.

Current Housing Situation

Australians’ current housing situations vary widely, but renting remains the most common category. Approximately 31.14% of respondents reported renting without actively looking to buy, while 26.51% owned homes with a mortgage and were not planning to move. A further 20.15% were outright homeowners and a final 11.85% are renting and actively looking to buy.

Other groups included renters actively looking to buy (12%), homeowners with mortgages looking to upsize (6%), and those seeking to downsize (4%). These findings illustrate the diversity of housing experiences, with a significant proportion of the population either unable or unwilling to enter the property market despite ongoing concerns about affordability.

Predictions of Home Ownership

When asked about their prospects for buying a home, respondents painted a bleak picture. While 8.51% believed they could purchase within two years, and 18.30% anticipated buying within 3–5 years, the majority (43.55%) expected it to take 5–10 years. Alarmingly, 29.65% believed they would never afford to buy a property.

Income emerged as a major determinant of optimism. Over half (50%) of those earning under $45,000 believed home ownership was unattainable, compared to 40% of those earning $45,000–$75,000 and just 14% of those earning above $125,000. Women were slightly more likely than men to believe they would never purchase a home, reflecting broader systemic barriers such as wage inequality and the gender wealth gap.

Even among those who were optimistic about purchasing a home, timelines skewed long, indicating that even middle - and high-income earners face challenges navigating Australia’s housing market.

Rising cost of living impact

“I’m not even saving for a property anymore because I have to try and make enough to pay rent and keep food on the table.”

• Female, 30, Victoria

When asked to provide their experiences with how the rising cost of living and cost of property has affected them, a significant proportion of respondents reported having to adjust their lifestyles: 

• 24.14% had to move due to affordability

• 17.24% have had to cut back on discretionary spending

• 10.34% had to abandon homeownership plans

• 6.9% had to downsize due to costs

• 6.9% are living paycheck to pay check 

• 6.5% have had to change jobs. 

• 3.45% had their rent/mortgage costs increased

The Economy

Confidence in the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)

When asked about their confidence in the RBA’s ability to manage inflation, public sentiment leaned negative. Disagreement was the most common response, reported by 40.52% of respondents, followed by neutrality at 38.6%, and agreement at 21%. This suggests a broad lack of trust in the RBA’s ability to address inflation effectively.

Confidence was notably influenced by age and income, with both showing a positive correlation. Older Australians (55+) reported confidence levels at 33%, significantly higher than the 9.37% among younger Australians aged 18–24. Similarly, income had a substantial impact, with 31.67% of those earning $200,000 or more expressing confidence, compared to only 14.61% of those earning $30,000–$45,000.

Gender differences were also evident, as men (28.05%) were 11.5% more likely to express confidence in the RBA than women (16.52%). While location had less impact, NSW residents (25.54%) were the most confident in the RBA, whereas those in Queensland (18.28%) expressed the least confidence.

Confidence in the Job Market

Confidence in the job market was similarly divided, with 35.88% of respondents expressing a lack of confidence, 34.05% remaining neutral, and only 30.07% expressing confidence.

Interestingly, age showed a surprising trend, with older Australians aged 55+ being more confident (34%) compared to the younger cohort aged 18–24, where only 11.72% reported confidence. However, the 25–34 age group expressed the highest skepticism, with 45% reporting a lack of confidence in the job market.

Income also played a critical role. While confidence levels rose among higher earners, with 44% of those earning $200,000+ expressing optimism, the $125,000–$199,000 cohort broke the trend. This group showed the highest skepticism, with 57% reporting a lack of confidence, 22 percentage points above the average of other income groups.

Geographic disparities were also significant. Respondents in Queensland reported the lowest confidence (17.86%) and the highest levels of skepticism (44.38%). Conversely, those in South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia were more optimistic, with over 30% expressing confidence in their job markets.

Job Insecurity Over the Past Two Years

Experiences of job insecurity were prevalent, though disagreement was the most common response, with 44.83% reporting job security over the past two years. Meanwhile, 35.45% reported experiencing job insecurity, and 19.72% remained neutral.

Younger age groups reported the highest levels of job insecurity, with 45.32% of 18–24-year-olds and 41.5% of 25–34-year-olds indicating they had faced insecurity. Conversely, only 18% of those aged 55+ reported similar experiences, likely reflecting the stability that often comes with seniority in the workforce.

Income also showed strong disparities. Among lower earners, 42% of those earning $45,000–$75,000 and 38.46% of those earning under $30,000 reported job insecurity. In contrast, high earners ($200,000+) were the least likely to experience insecurity, with 61% reporting stable jobs.

Geographically, Western Australians (42%) were the most likely to report job insecurity, while Queenslanders (31.72%) and South Australians (32.98%) reported the lowest levels. Women (37%) were also slightly more likely than men (32.87%) to experience job insecurity.

Confidence in the Government’s Economic Management

Public confidence in the government’s ability to manage the economy was overwhelmingly negative, with 58.73% of respondents expressing disagreement. Neutrality was reported by 22.09%, while only 19.18% expressed confidence.

Age and income both influenced responses. Confidence was relatively consistent across most age groups, with approximately a quarter expressing confidence. However, only 14.84% of 18–24-year-olds shared this view. Similarly, higher earners ($200,000+) were more confident (33%) compared to lower earners ($30,000–$45,000), where confidence dropped to 17.97%.

Regional differences were notable, with South Australians (29.27%) being the most confident in the government, compared to only 19.76% of Victorians. Gender also played a role, with men (27.76%) significantly more likely than women (18.96%) to express confidence.

Confidence in Cost-of-Living Improvements

When asked about the statement, “I am confident that the cost of living will improve in 2025,” nearly half (47.95%) disagreed, reflecting widespread pessimism. Neutrality was reported by 29.85%, and just 22.2% believed improvements were likely.

Age played a significant role, with the youngest (18–24 years, 65.63%) and oldest (55+, 62%) age groups showing the least confidence. This may reflect the challenges these groups face, such as starting careers or living on fixed incomes.

Confidence correlated positively with income, as 30% of high earners ($200,000+) expressed optimism, compared to only 13.49% of those earning $30,000–$45,000. Geographically, South Australians were the most optimistic, with 25% expecting improvements, while Queenslanders (18.28%) were the least hopeful.

Gender differences were also apparent, with 24% of men expressing confidence compared to only 16.17% of women, potentially reflecting broader financial vulnerabilities among women.

Public Healthcare

Accessibility of Healthcare Services

Public sentiment about the accessibility of healthcare services in their area was generally positive, with 54.13% of respondents expressing satisfaction. A quarter of respondents, however, disagreed, and nearly 20% remained neutral.

Age emerged as a significant factor influencing satisfaction. Older Australians (55+) were the most satisfied, with 64% expressing agreement. However, satisfaction dropped notably among those aged 35–44, where only 45% reported satisfaction, and 34.5% expressed dissatisfaction—the highest dissatisfaction rate among all age groups. Young adults aged 18–24 presented a mixed picture, with 50% satisfied but over a quarter reporting neutrality, reflecting possible limited interaction with the healthcare system due to age.

Income also played a role, with satisfaction increasing among higher earners. Those earning $200,000+ were 10 percentage points more likely to be satisfied compared to lower-income earners making $30,000–$45,000.

Gender disparities were evident as well, with men being 12 percentage points more likely to report satisfaction than women. In contrast, women were 11 percentage points more likely to express dissatisfaction, indicating differing experiences or expectations based on gender.

Quality of Healthcare Services

Satisfaction with the quality of healthcare services mirrored patterns seen in accessibility, with 56.9% of respondents expressing satisfaction. However, 22.74% reported dissatisfaction, and 20.37% were neutral.

Age remained a key determinant. Older Australians (55+) were the most satisfied, with 68% expressing agreement. In contrast, only 45% of those aged 35–44 were satisfied, aligning with their lower satisfaction regarding accessibility. Other age groups showed consistent satisfaction levels, ranging from 56.5% to 58%, indicating stable perceptions across these cohorts.

Income and location were also influential. High earners ($200,000+) reported the highest satisfaction levels, with over 70% expressing agreement. Geographically, respondents in Queensland (61.82%) were more satisfied than those in other states, highlighting regional disparities in perceived healthcare quality.

Gender differences persisted, with 63.74% of men satisfied compared to 52.69% of women, a gap of over 11 percentage points.

Support for Medicare-Covered Dental Care via Higher Taxes

When asked whether they would support higher taxes to include dental care under Medicare, 41.06% of respondents agreed, while 34.37% opposed, and 24.57% remained neutral.

Age was a key determinant of support. Older Australians (55+) were the most supportive, with 68% expressing agreement, followed by 56.5% of those aged 45–54. Younger respondents aged 18–24 were less supportive, with 43.75% agreeing, reflecting potential financial concerns or differing priorities.

Income influenced opinions, as 40% of those earning over $45,000 supported the proposal, compared to only 34% of those earning less than $45,000. Geographically, support was highest in New South Wales (43%), while Western Australians (41%) were the most opposed.

Preference for Bulk-Billing General Practitioners (GPs)

The majority of respondents (63.9%) expressed a preference for bulk-billing GPs when ill, while 20.37% were neutral, and 15.73% disagreed.

Income emerged as a strong determinant. Lower earners, including those earning $30,000–$45,000 (72%) and under $30,000 (69.6%), were more likely to seek bulk-billing services. In contrast, only 55% of those earning $125,000–$199,000 shared this preference, reflecting the financial pressures of lower-income groups.

Geographic disparities were notable, with South Australians (67.07%) most likely to prioritize bulk-billing, compared to Western Australians (60.44%). Gender differences also appeared, as 67% of women reported seeking bulk-billing clinics, compared to 59.44% of men.

Perceptions of Mental Health Management

When asked about the adequacy of mental health management in the healthcare system, 46% disagreed, indicating widespread dissatisfaction. 29% remained neutral, and only 24.95% expressed agreement, highlighting a significant gap in public confidence.

Age did not significantly influence responses, with dissatisfaction consistently ranging from 43–48% across cohorts. However, income, location, and gender showed marked differences.

• Income: Dissatisfaction was highest among those earning $125,000–$199,000 (50%), while only 38% of low-income earners reported the same, suggesting differing expectations or experiences based on economic status.

• Geography: Dissatisfaction was most pronounced in South Australia (52%), compared to 41% in Queensland, indicating regional variability in mental health services.

• Gender: Women were significantly more likely to report dissatisfaction, with 51.63% expressing concerns compared to 36.63% of men, a 15 percentage point difference. This disparity may reflect differing mental health needs or barriers to care experienced by women.

Primary concerns about the state of healthcare in Australia

Respondents were asked to provide qualitative responses addressing their primary concerns about the state of healthcare in Australia. These responses revealed several key themes with heavy emphasis on cost, coverage and staffing. 

Affordability was the most frequently mentioned issue, cited by 34% of respondents, with concerns about high costs of services, out-of-pocket expenses, and reduced access to bulk billing. Accessibility followed closely at 28%, with respondents highlighting long wait times, challenges securing appointments, and limited healthcare availability in rural areas.

Staffing and resource shortages were also significant, mentioned by 22%, who pointed to overworked staff, ambulance ramping, and underfunded public hospitals as major issues. Mental health services emerged as a specific concern for 10% of respondents, emphasizing the difficulty of accessing affordable and timely care in this area. Notably, 6% of respondents expressed no concerns, indicating satisfaction with the current system. These findings underscore the importance of addressing affordability, accessibility, and resource allocation to improve public healthcare outcomes in Australia.

Private Health Care

Ownership of Private Health Insurance (PHI)

A slight majority of respondents (53.21%) reported holding private health insurance, while 46.7% indicated they do not. This indicates a modest edge in favor of PHI uptake but highlights that nearly half of respondents opt out, suggesting potential barriers such as cost or perceived value.

Age plays an important role in PHI ownership. The highest uptake was among respondents aged 35–44 (61%), potentially reflecting this group’s stage of life, where family responsibilities and concerns about health become more pressing. Conversely, only 47.5% of those aged 45–54 hold PHI, the lowest among all cohorts. Younger respondents (under 35) and older individuals (55+) also reported high uptake rates, at 51.5% and above, likely driven by family plans or retirement health priorities.

Income emerged as the strongest determinant of PHI ownership, showing a clear positive correlation.

• 83% of respondents earning over $200,000 annually held PHI, followed by 76% of those earning $125,000–$199,000.

• Among middle-income earners ($75,000–$125,000), ownership dropped to 56%.

• In lower-income brackets, ownership was significantly lower: only 44% of those earning $45,000–$75,000, 30% of those earning under $30,000, and 21% of those earning $30,000–$45,000 held PHI.

Geography also played a role in PHI uptake. Respondents in Western Australia reported the highest ownership at 65%, followed by 55% in New South Wales. By contrast, only 49% of Victorians reported holding PHI, suggesting regional differences in healthcare preferences or accessibility of public healthcare.

Gender differences were evident, with 57% of men holding PHI compared to 51% of women, reflecting potential disparities in health-related decision-making or priorities between genders.

Perceived Value of Private Health Insurance

Respondents who hold PHI were divided on its value, with 51.21% agreeing it is good value and 48.79% disagreeing. This split highlights ongoing concerns about the cost-effectiveness of PHI, even among those who choose to hold it.

Younger respondents aged 18–24 were the most likely to view PHI as good value (78%), likely due to benefits from family plans that offer broad coverage at a reduced individual cost. Among older Australians aged 55+, 57% found PHI to be good value, reflecting the perceived necessity of access to private healthcare services in retirement. In contrast, dissatisfaction was most pronounced among those aged 35–44, where 53% believed PHI was not good value. This trend continued in the 45–54 age group, with 58% dissatisfied, potentially reflecting frustrations with rising premiums or limited perceived benefits for their needs.

Interestingly, income did not show a clear correlation with satisfaction.

• 55% of those earning $45,000–$125,000 found PHI to be good value, making this group the most satisfied.

• Dissatisfaction was highest among those earning under $30,000 and $125,000–$199,000, with only 43% and 43% respectively finding PHI worthwhile, perhaps due to affordability concerns for lower earners and higher expectations among higher earners.

Geographic variations in satisfaction were notable.

• Respondents in Western Australia (61%) and Victoria (59%) were most likely to perceive PHI as good value.

• In contrast, fewer than 50% of respondents in New South Wales (48.73%), Queensland (47.87%), and South Australia (45.24%) shared this sentiment, suggesting regional differences in the perceived benefits of PHI relative to costs.

Gender differences were minimal but present. Women were slightly more likely than men to find PHI valuable (52.7% vs. 49.5%), possibly reflecting differing health priorities or usage patterns between genders.

Finally, those who intend to vote for the Labor party are more likely to perceive their private health insurance as good value (55%) as compared to those intended to vote for Liberal (50.56%)

Climate Change

Concern About Climate Change and Its Impacts

A majority of respondents (61%) expressed concern about climate change and its impacts, while 22.74% remained neutral, and 16.27% reported no concern. This broad level of agreement highlights the prominence of climate change as a key public issue.

Age plays a significant role in shaping attitudes, with younger Australians showing the highest levels of concern. Over 72% of respondents aged 18–24 reported concern, compared to 55% of those aged 45–54 and 59.5% of those aged 55+. This generational divide may reflect younger individuals’ heightened awareness of future environmental challenges and their long-term impacts.

Income also correlates with concern, with 76.67% of high-income earners ($200,000+) expressing concern. Among other income brackets, concern ranged between 57% and 62%, suggesting that while income influences attitudes, climate concern spans across economic groups.

Geographically, Western Australia reported the highest levels of climate concern (71%), while respondents in Queensland were the least concerned, with only 53.66% expressing agreement. This may reflect regional differences in exposure to climate-related events or public discourse.

Finally, gender is a notable factor, with 64.89% of women expressing concern compared to 54.89% of men, highlighting a consistent trend of higher environmental concern among women.

Environmental Issues and Voting Decisions

Environmental issues influence voting decisions for 45% of respondents, while 23.49% reported no influence and 31.14% remained neutral. This demonstrates that environmental concerns are a significant factor in political preferences for nearly half of Australians.

Age again shows a negative correlation with influence. Environmental issues affect the voting decisions of 64.71% of those aged 18–24, compared to 49% of those aged 35–44 and just 37% of respondents aged 55+. Younger voters are more likely to prioritize environmental policies, reflecting generational divides in political priorities.

Income also influences the impact of climate on voting decisions. Over 55% of respondents earning $200,000+ consider environmental issues in their voting, compared to 39.13% of those earning under $30,000. This trend suggests that higher earners may perceive environmental policies as more directly aligned with their values or long-term economic benefits.

Geographically, environmental issues are more influential in NSW (47.53%) and Victoria (46.61%) compared to WA (42.86%) and SA (41.47%). Gender differences also persist, with 48.88% of women influenced by environmental concerns compared to 40% of men.

Climate-Related Insurance Claims

A minority of respondents (23.49%) reported attempting to make insurance claims due to climate-related damage, while 45.37% disagreed, and 31.14% were neutral.

Age and income significantly affect experiences with climate-related claims. Those aged 25–34 (20%) were the most likely to report attempting claims, compared to only 4% of those aged 55+. Similarly, 16.67% of high earners ($200,000+) reported filing claims, while only 7.87% of those earning $30,000–$45,000 had similar experiences.

Regional differences were apparent, with NSW (16.55%) and Victoria (13.14%) reporting higher claim rates, while Western Australia (10.1%) had the lowest. Gender also played a role, as 14.65% of men reported filing claims compared to 11.7% of women.

Concern About Insurance Policy Coverage

When asked about concerns over insurance coverage for increasingly severe weather events, 38.26% of respondents expressed agreement, 37.07% remained neutral, and 24.63% disagreed.

Age played a significant role, with younger respondents more likely to express concern. 44.5% of those aged 25–34 reported worry, compared to only 30% of those aged 55+. This generational difference may reflect younger individuals’ heightened awareness of climate risks and their potential financial impact.

Income also influenced concern, with 42.7% of those earning $75,000–$199,000 expressing worry, compared to just 29.22% of those earning $30,000–$45,000.

Interestingly, Western Australians reported the highest levels of concern (45.06%), despite having the lowest rates of climate-related claims. Conversely, Victorians (36.66%), who reported higher claim rates, were the least concerned, suggesting regional variations in perceived risk versus actual experience.

Gender differences were evident, with 39.76% of women expressing concern compared to 35.5% of men, continuing the trend of higher environmental concern among women.

Education

Support for Higher Taxes to Invest in Education

When asked about their willingness to pay higher taxes for increased investment in education, respondents were generally opposed. 40.73% expressed disagreement, while 30.39% were neutral, and 28.88% showed support. 

Age plays a critical role in shaping attitudes. Younger Australians are more supportive, with 42.64% of those aged 18–24 willing to pay higher taxes for education, compared to just 10.5% of respondents aged 55+. This stark divide reflects generational differences, likely driven by younger individuals' proximity to the education system and concerns about its future accessibility.

Income also influences responses, though not in a straightforward manner. Higher earners ($200,000+) are more likely to support this initiative, with 33% expressing agreement, compared to only 16.86% of those earning $30,000–$45,000. However, this higher-income group also contains a substantial proportion of detractors, with 48% expressing disagreement, indicating polarized opinions within this cohort.

Geographically, respondents in NSW and Victoria (32%) were the most supportive of higher taxes for education, while only 19.78% of Western Australians expressed agreement. Interestingly, gender showed minimal influence, with no significant differences in support levels between men and women.

Perceptions of HECS/HELP Debt Affordability

Public sentiment around HECS/HELP debt affordability leaned strongly negative, with 60.56% of respondents agreeing that it is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Another 29.31% were neutral, and just 10.13% disagreed.

Age is a significant determinant of concern. Younger Australians aged 18–24 reported the highest levels of agreement (74.27%), reflecting their direct experience with student debt burdens. Conversely, only 50.5% of those aged 55+ expressed concern, with 36% remaining neutral, suggesting a generational divide in perceptions of debt sustainability.

Income shows a nuanced impact. Middle-income earners ($45,000–$199,000) were the most likely to agree that HECS/HELP debt is becoming unaffordable (61.93%), while lower-income earners ($30,000–$45,000) were the least concerned (49.44%). This may indicate that those in middle-income brackets feel squeezed between repayment obligations and other financial responsibilities.

Geographically, concern was highest in Queensland (65.43%) and NSW (62.32%), compared to South Australia (54.88%), where respondents were least concerned. This regional variation could reflect differences in employment opportunities or public discourse around education costs.

Gender emerged as the most significant factor, with 65.41% of women expressing concern about HECS/HELP debt affordability, compared to 52.39% of men. This gender disparity may reflect broader financial pressures faced by women, including wage gaps and caregiving responsibilities, which can exacerbate debt burdens.

Transportation

Reliance on Cars

A significant majority of respondents (72.24%) reported being reliant on their cars, with 14.44% expressing no reliance and 12.82% remaining neutral. 

Age differences reveal nuanced trends. While most age groups demonstrated reliance exceeding 70%, respondents aged 25–34 reported the lowest reliance at 68.5%, possibly reflecting urban living trends or greater use of public transport. In contrast, the most reliant group was 35–44-year-olds, with 78% citing car dependency, likely tied to family and work-related commitments.

Income showed a positive correlation with car reliance. Those earning $125,000–$199,000 reported the highest reliance (81%), followed by 76.67% of those earning $200,000+. Lower-income groups demonstrated significantly less reliance, with 65.17% of those earning $30,000–$45,000 and 56.62% of those earning under $30,000 reporting reliance, suggesting that affordability and access to alternatives play a role.

Regional differences also emerged. Queensland had the highest reliance on cars, with 81.39% of respondents dependent on their vehicles. By contrast, reliance was notably lower in NSW (65.14%) and Victoria (73.3%), likely reflecting greater public transport availability in these states. Gender differences were negligible, with men and women reporting similar levels of car reliance.

Government Subsidies and Electric Vehicle Adoption

When asked whether government subsidies encourage electric vehicle (EV) adoption, the most popular response was disagreement, with 57.86% of respondents finding subsidies ineffective. Another 26.29% remained neutral, while only 15.84% agreed that subsidies incentivized EV purchases.

Age played a significant role, showing a negative correlation with subsidy effectiveness. Younger respondents aged 18–24 were the most receptive, with 21% agreeing that subsidies influenced their decision. By contrast, only 5% of those aged 55+ reported being influenced, indicating a generational divide in attitudes toward EV adoption and environmental incentives.

Income also influenced responses, with higher earners ($125,000–$199,000) more likely to find subsidies effective (22%) compared to just 7.86% of those earning $30,000–$45,000. This discrepancy likely reflects the affordability of EVs for higher-income groups, even with subsidies.

Geographically, there were minor differences. Respondents in NSW (18.31%) and SA (18.22%) were slightly more likely to find subsidies effective compared to the national average (14.36%). Gender also influenced responses, with 18.31% of men reporting subsidies as effective compared to 14.46% of women.

Satisfaction with Public Transport

Public transport satisfaction was generally positive, with over 50% of respondents expressing agreement with the statement, "I am satisfied with public transport in my area." However, satisfaction varied significantly across demographics.

Age differences were notable. While most age groups reported satisfaction levels exceeding 50%, respondents aged 35–44 had the highest dissatisfaction rates, with significant proportions expressing neutrality or opposition.

By region, South Australians were the most satisfied, reporting levels almost 10 percentage points higher than respondents from Victoria, reflecting regional disparities in public transport systems.

Gender significantly influenced satisfaction levels. While men and women both showed strong opinions, dissatisfaction was far higher among women, with over 30% expressing dissatisfaction, compared to only 19.15% of men. This may highlight safety concerns or differing experiences in public transport usage.

Willingness to Pay Higher Taxes for Public Transport Investment

Support for higher taxes to invest in public transport was limited, with 42.51% of respondents opposing the idea, 29.87% supporting it, and 27.62% remaining neutral.

Age played a significant role in shaping attitudes. Most age groups leaned toward opposition, except for those aged 25–34, where agreement and disagreement were evenly split. Opposition was strongest among respondents aged 55+, with 50% expressing disagreement, potentially reflecting skepticism about the benefits of increased public transport investment at their life stage.

Regional differences were also evident. Respondents in NSW (34.51%) were the most supportive of higher taxes for public transport, possibly reflecting greater reliance on the system and dissatisfaction with its current state. In contrast, Western Australians (21.98%) were the least supportive, suggesting lower perceived need or satisfaction with existing infrastructure.

Gender influenced responses as well, with 33.24% of men supporting higher taxes for public transport investment compared to 27.54% of women, indicating differing priorities or financial constraints.

Childcare

Current Childcare Subsidies

When asked about the adequacy of current childcare subsidies, responses were split. 35% of respondents expressed agreement that childcare is sufficiently subsidized, while an equal 35% remained neutral, and 29% disagreed.

Gender differences were significant, with women far more likely than men to believe that subsidies are insufficient. Over 34% of female respondents expressed opposition to the statement, compared to only 22% of men. Men were 7 percentage points more likely to express neutrality and 6 percentage points more likely to support the current level of subsidies, highlighting a gendered divide that likely reflects caregiving roles and direct experiences with childcare costs.

Age was another critical determinant. Respondents aged 44 and under were more likely to feel that childcare subsidies are inadequate, likely due to their current or recent use of childcare services. In contrast, a majority of those aged 55+ (53%) believed that childcare is sufficiently subsidized, suggesting a generational difference in perceptions tied to life stage and priorities.

Regionally, respondents in NSW were the most likely to report dissatisfaction with current childcare subsidies, while Queenslanders were the most likely to believe that subsidies are adequate, reflecting potential regional differences in childcare costs and availability.

Income also played a significant role. Paradoxically, those earning over $200,000 were the most likely to report dissatisfaction, with 45% expressing opposition to the current level of subsidies. This could reflect higher expectations for government support or frustration with the perceived limitations of current subsidies relative to their childcare expenses.

Willingness to Pay Higher Taxes for Childcare Subsidies

When asked whether they would support higher taxes to increase investment in childcare subsidies, the most common response was opposition, with 48.49% of respondents disagreeing. Neutrality was expressed by 31.57%, while only 19.94% of respondents supported the idea.

Age was a strong predictor of attitudes, with older Australians showing the highest opposition. Among those aged 55+, 67.5% opposed higher taxes for childcare, reflecting limited personal benefits for this group. Younger respondents aged 18–34 were the most supportive, likely reflecting their current reliance on childcare services.

Income also influenced responses. Those earning $30,000–$75,000 were the most opposed, with over 50% expressing disagreement, potentially due to limited disposable income. Conversely, those earning under $30,000 were among the most supportive, highlighting the disproportionate impact of childcare costs on low-income households.

Regional differences were pronounced. Respondents in NSW and SA were the most supportive of higher taxes for childcare investment, while those in QLD and WA were the least supportive, with over 50% in these states expressing opposition.

Gender differences persisted, with women more likely than men to support increased taxation for childcare subsidies. Despite the overall low levels of support, women were more likely to prioritize the need for expanded subsidies, reflecting the gendered burden of childcare costs.

Conclusion

Ultimately, this report highlights a growing demand for more effective, targeted policy solutions that address affordability and financial security in ways that align with diverse needs. Whether through government action or individual financial decision-making, Australians are seeking more sustainable solutions to navigate an increasingly complex economic landscape.