Those are quite random accusations Communicat. I don't think they necessarily equate to the bias you want to believe is in the report to discredit and smear the researcher with. As you say, libel applies to this thread also :-)

Perhaps you could check actual current government commissioned research to see if we have a corrupt, unaccountable government that is buying data that favours it with impunity. The methodologies you are quibbling over would seem to apply to a lot of research, particularly government research (and particularly the kind that they hide and keep locked away from the public. You know, WMD and the lies spread by our traitorous -or incompetent- intelligence agency etc...).

Communicat, if that is the best you can do, then I'm not the least bit concerned about the study's methodology.
8000 is a large sample - my wife works at a market research company that does Australia-wide surveys all the time, and the most responses she's ever had to deal with is a couple of thousand.
Yes there are known issues with random telephone interviews - but there are issues with any style of interview, and statistical methods to adjust accordingly. I could certainly see, for instance, that workers unhappy about WorkChoices are more likely to want to take part in such a survey.
Why on earth should it make a difference whether you preface a question with "Do you believe..."? And "how" is a different question altogether.
I agree the last question is a little loaded - but if anything it seems likely to encourage people that have remained on an award to answer in the affirmative, as it's a common human trait to feel like "more and more is expected" of them.