As climate change was the biggest issue last federal election I assumed that an emissions trading scheme (ETS) – what the government calls a carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) – would be generally popular, but with pockets of resistance, mostly amongst Liberal and National voters..

That's not how it works at all.

Our responses were almost evenly balanced between supporters and opponents with 40% approving and 39% disapproving. More or less a dead heat. But it gets worse for the proponents.

When I analysed the qual from respondents I found that of those who strongly approved, 18% had reservations, while 28% of those who approved did as well. 31% of those who were unsure also expressed reservations as did 46% of those who neither approved nor disapproved. So, opposition is almost the same as support, but supporters are equivocal about the benefits.

A break-down by major parties shows that while I was correct about the Liberal and National opposition (to which I’ve had to add "Liberal National" because of Queensland), there is also significant opposition amongst Greens, Independents, and Undecideds.

The net approve is slightly better than for the total sample because of the categories that I had to exclude because they were too small for the result to be meaningful.

The qual showed that there were a number of grounds for opposition, but overall the pattern is consistent with what has occurred overseas when charges have been imposed to curb greenhouse gas emissions. While voters agree that something needs to be done about the issue, most of the policies that are implemented are seen as primarily an attempt by government to increase its tax take. Voters therefore reject the measure while accepting that something needs to be done.

The "hardest" opposition is probably from those who believe that CO2 is not a risk. While a minority they appear to be a substantial minority. Their number is much larger than recent polls, such as this one from Newspoll, suggest they should be.

Apart from that opposition rests on three major premises. One is that the policy will be ineffective. Another is that it will impose unacceptable costs on the economy.

The effectiveness argument has a number of variations. Many respondents, most particularly Greens, think that the targets have been set too low. So, while the scheme might achieve the targets, this is seen as insufficient. A typical comment was that the measure was "a good start".

The market-based nature of the measure contributes to the view that the scheme is ineffective. Many respondents cannot see how you can reduce emissions while allowing "big" emitters to pay to continue to emit. They also thought that it was more likely to be designed to make money for middlemen than to reduce emissions. There was support for a carbon tax, rather than a trading scheme.

Another common comment about the system was that it was so complicated that people did not understand it, which resulted in resistance.

The economic arguments centred on the increase in costs and the need to have a scheme that is global, rather than just domestic. Respondents were concerned that industries and jobs would move overseas under the ETS. Traditional concerns about Australia being a small isolated economy also played a part in this.

The Leximancer Map illustrates how these themes interact. The three themes closest to those who approve are Start ("at least this is a start"), Market and Change ("we need to change things"). So while change represents their urgency, the other two themes relate to reservations. Emissions is the theme right at the centre of the map, which is to be expected.

Those who disapprove are at opposite poles on the map. One group is associated with the theme Big. The word "big" is almost always associated with "polluters", "emissions", and "companies". This is the concern that large corporates will get away with something.

The group who most strongly opposes the ETS is associated with Global and Tax. Global is a theme that is also close to those who strongly approve. It stands for global warming, but there is also a strong component of concern for how Australia is affected in a global context explaining why it is relevant to both groups.

Tax has two separate uses. One is by those who believe that a carbon tax would be a better solution. The other is that an ETS is a tax, and the last thing that Australia needs at the moment. The former is a strong theme amongst Greens voters, the latter amongst Liberals and Nationals.

The final theme is Work, which means at one level that respondents don’t think the scheme will work, and at the other that it is too complicated for them to understand it. This theme is most closely associated with those who neither support nor oppose the scheme, or who are unsure.

We know what you have told us about your investment intentions - mortgages and credit cards to be paid-off first and fresh investments in shares and real estate last. Here is an alternate take from Macquarie Securities and Investment Trends.

Note that while it is phrased in terms of what "clients" will do it is actually a survey of client advisors.

Reader Jeff, a seasoned political analyst, suggested that "I suspect the mob are very susceptible to a fear campaign about the level of government debt. That is the one problem for 07 with his package - the mob will like the package but worry about the debt."

In fact that doesn't appear to be the case at the moment. While our respondents are looking to pay-down their own debt levels, they are relaxed about government debt. This could be for a number of reasons.

First, they are not really sure what level of net debt the government has. Less than a third could accurately pick the figure closest to Australia's net debt level, which the government estimates to be -$16.2 billion for this financial year (that is a cash surplus).

Coincidentally, a similar number was also concerned about net debt, but the majority (54%) were unconcerned, and 16% were neither concerned nor unconcerned.

And most saw no connection between government debt and their own personal economic plans.

As noted in our last post, Australians would pay back their personal debt if they had a cash surplus. These tables give some more detail on that.

Privately our respondents are very contractionary. Only 9% are thinking of increasing their mortgage, while 67% are likely to pay it back.

On credit cards they are even more cautious with 79% likely to reduce and only 2% contemplating a spending spree.

11% said they did not have a credit card. Of the balance, 75% said they tried to pay their credit card bill entirely each month.

The latest Roy Morgan poll, out today, shows a drop in Labor's primary vote and a similar rise in the Coalition vote. If an election had been held last weekend, Labor would still have won 56% of the two-party preferred vote.

It also shows a significant drop in the "confidence rating" while those who say Australia is heading in the right direction have declined in number by 6%. Those who say it is heading in the right direction are up by 2%, which means 4% must have reserved judgement.

Will these findings be mirrored in our poll taken at roughly the same time? I'll let you know next week. Have a good weekend.

Federal Parliamentarians are debating whether tax cuts or cash grants are more effective in encouraging spending. Our research suggests that it probably doesn't make much difference.

Between January 30 and February 3, 1573 Australians gave us their views on politics and the economy. This research is qualitative, and we normally use quantitative results to place the qual in context. However, it would appear that despite the limitations of our quantitative figures they are likely to be better than anything else currently available.

I will be releasing the research results over the next few days, and am releasing these figures first in response to circumstances.

How much of the $10.4 billion cash grant was spent over Christmas, and on what?

68% of our respondents received nothing. Of the 32% who did, 53% spent the money (including 20% who used it for house maintenance or improvement). The balance saved it.

What would you do with any surplus funds?

This question was deliberately held neutral so that we didn't mention tax cuts, or cash. So in one sense it doesn't answer the question of which is more effective, because it could have been that respondents had one or the other in mind, and there is no way of telling.

However, what the figures actually show is that there is no predictable answer to this question because the answer depends on who you are and what your needs are. While 30% say they would spend as their one or two preference, 37% say it is their last or second last preference. This seems fairly flat. But if you remove expenditure on housing because it may have qualities of both spending and saving, then the trend is quite clear.

So, whatever form the money comes in, people say that they are most likely to either save it, or spend it on their largest capital asset. So perhaps a voucher for your local hardware store would be the best way of getting money out into the economy.

And if you take the housing effect out of the Xmas figures, the proportion who spent declines to 33%.

All of which suggests that it probably doesn't matter how you provide the benefits, if people think that things are getting worse, then the rational thing is to hoard.

There is a lot more depth in the data, and we'd be happy to provide more in-depth analysis if you think you need it. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it if you do.