Australians overwhelmingly want the federal government to get a ”balanced” outcome on the Murray-Darling Basin but, when push comes to shove, more put the interests of communities and farmers ahead of the environment.
On the other intractable environmental issue facing the Gillard government, only 46 per cent support a price on carbon, just ahead of the 44 per cent who opposed it in the Age/Nielsen poll.
This is significantly lower than previous support for an emissions trading scheme, which in polls taken from February to July this year ranged from 56 per cent to 60 per cent.
When people were given the choice of whether the highest priority in Murray-Darling water allocation should be the needs of communities and farmers, the environment, or a balance, 79 per cent chose a balance, 12 per cent communities and farmers, and 8 per cent the environment.
But when those wanting a balance were pressed to say which of the other alternatives should ”ultimately” prevail, 49 per cent - equivalent to 39 per cent of all respondents - opted for the needs of community and farmers. Only 45 per cent - equivalent to 35 per cent of all respondents - said the environment should prevail.
When the two questions were added together, 51 per cent initially or ultimately put the needs of community and farmers first, compared with 43 per cent who said the environment should have priority.
There was little difference between the views of city and regional dwellers on the Murray-Darling allocation questions.
Coalition voters were more likely to give precedence to community and farmer needs over the environment.
Green voters overwhelmingly supported a price on carbon (74 per cent), while 58 per cent of Labor voters were in favour but only 31 per cent of Coalition voters.
