As an academic could I point out that it is extremely difficult to present a report such as this without being influenced by personal beliefs. Unlike data which can be replicated by repeating the experiment this study relies on a great many "human" factors.
Nevertheless, having now looked at the study, I (and a number of colleagues) believe the overall methodology is fundamentally flawed. However critiques of the report are unlikely to be given much credence in the media!
There is little doubt that the study was politically motivated - and that the authors have stumbled badly by stating their personal convictions elsewhere

It's hardly fair to say they "stumbled" by communicating their beliefs elsewhere, seeing as that ago some time ago.
Communicat, I'm curious to see what work you and your colleagues have done in analysing the study's methodology. And, while I'd hardly except to see a Today Tonight segment objectively dissecting the report, a paper like the Australian has plenty of talented writers that would arguably be motivated to write such a piece. And if The Age is happy to include the occasional article by John Roskam or Alan Moran, then even they should be happy to include an article that details inadequacies in the Australia@work findings.

Let's put the labels aside - how about a moratorium on the words 'left' and 'right'; they put thinking to sleep - and focus on the content and methodology of the report.

Communicat , as a self-styled academic, and having now looked at the study, you say that you and your colleagues believe the overall methodology is 'fundamentally flawed'.

Here's your chance, and challenge, to say how it is flawed. Leaving aside the allegations of 'political motivation', please give us an account of the flaws in the report.

Here it is, make no mistake this thread is important, here within its posts you can see the decline of John Howard.
Forget the polls, forget in one term the massive swing from total control to total defeat.
Watch the refusal to understand policy's, good and bad ones win elections.
Not defaming the other side.
Not refusal to see some things are failures not kill the messenger threads like this.
Post election, watch authors like this will put the blame for this defeat on workchoices.
Honesty has its part to play in politics, conservatives must confront the reason the polls are so bad, except the judges ruling.

Very briefly Frank (1)the data base was too narrow and (2) the questions were framed so as to elicit negative rather than positive responses.
(1) may be a result of the amount of the time and money available to do a project. (2) is either inexperience, incompetence or deliberate.

Communicat

Can you tell me what the benchmark figure is for a data base to be considered broad enough?

Can you give an example of a question framed so as to elicit negative rather than positive responses?

Can you tell us how much time and money was available for this project, and how much you think is adequate for a project of this type?

You give three possible explanations for your assessment that this was a poor project -either inexperience, incompetence or deliberate. Can you tell us which of the three you lean towards wih your reasons for that choice?