Trends in Australian Political Opinion Results from the Australian Election Study 1987– 2019

Sarah Cameron & Ian McAllister

School of Politics & International Relations ANU College of Arts & Social Sciences australianelectionstudy.org

Sarah Cameron Ian McAllister

December, 2019

Sarah Cameron School of Social and Political Sciences The University of Sydney E [email protected]

Ian McAllister School of Politics and International Relations The Australian National University E [email protected] Contents

Introduction 5 The election campaign 7 Voting and partisanship 17 Election issues 31 The economy 51 Politics and political parties 71 The left-right dimension 81 The political leaders 85 Democracy and institutions 97 Trade unions, business and wealth 107 Social issues 115 Defence and foreign affairs 129 References 143 Appendix: Methodology 147 Introduction

The Liberal-National Coalition The results also highlight how In 2019 two further surveys are win in the 2019 Australian federal voter attitudes contributed available to complement the election came as a surprise to the to the election result. Factors AES. The first is Module 5 of the nation. The media and the polls advantaging the Coalition in the Comparative Study of Electoral australianelectionstudy.org had provided a consistent narrative 2019 election include: the focus Systems project (www.cses. in the lead up to election day that on economic issues (p. 32), an org). This survey used the Social > Access complete data files and Labor was headed for victory. area in which the Coalition has Research Centre’s ‘Life in Australia’ documentation to conduct your When we have unexpected election a strong advantage over Labor panel and was fielded just after the own analysis results, how do we make sense of (p. 34); and Bill Shorten’s low election. In addition to fielding the why people voted the way they did? popularity in comparison to other Module 5 questionnaire, the survey > Explore interactive charts to party leaders over the past thirty also included a variety of other The Australian Election Study (AES) examine differences in political years (p. 88). Although the Coalition questions relevant to the election. provides the most sophisticated attitudes by age, gender, education won the election, there were The second is the 2016-19 panel and comprehensive source of level and vote factors benefitting Labor. Climate survey, which re-interviewed 968 evidence ever collected on political change and the environment respondents between the two attitudes and behaviour in Australia. > Download Australian Election were more important issues in this elections and provides a unique A representative public opinion Study reports and articles election than in any other election insight into the factors influencing survey, the AES has been fielded on record (p. 33), an area where changes in political attitudes after every federal election since Labor’s policies are preferred to the and behaviour between the two 1987. The survey asks a wide Coalition’s (p. 39). And a majority elections. range of questions to discover what of voters disapproved of the way shaped voters’ choices at the ballot In this monograph, we draw on the the Liberal Party handled the 2018 box—including considerations in main recurring themes of the AES leadership change from Malcolm the vote decision, the importance of to trace long-term changes in the Turnbull to Scott Morrison (p. 95). different policy issues, and attitudes political opinion of the electorate. towards the political parties and In most cases, our trends run from The appendix provides an overview leaders. This provides a wealth of 1987 until 2019; in some cases, of the methodology used in each information to understand voter the same questions have been survey. behaviour and how that feeds into asked in surveys conducted in Further details on the dynamics election results. 1967, 1969 and 1979, allowing shaping the 2019 election are us to extend the time series This monograph presents the provided in our accompanying back another two decades. The long-term trends over time in report, The 2019 Australian 1987 to 2019 trends are based voter attitudes and behaviour Federal Election: Results from on the Australian Election Study in Australia. Situating the 2019 the Australian Election Study. (AES) surveys, comprehensive election in historical context These reports and a range of other post-election surveys of political highlights unique factors in this resources including codebooks, opinion that have asked the same election. Many indicators point to technical reports and an interactive questions and used substantially citizen detachment from the major tool to explore the data online, the same methodology. The 1967, political parties, including record are available on the AES website: 1969 and 1979 surveys are also low political partisanship (p. 28), australianelectionstudy.org comprehensive academic surveys rising voter instability (p. 21) and of political opinion; all three surveys Sarah Cameron voter distrust in government (p. 99). were conducted by Don Aitkin, who Ian McAllister Compared to previous elections, pioneered the use of mass public voters saw clear differences opinion surveys in the academic between the parties (p. 27). December 2019 study of politics in Australia.

5 Acknowledgements The election campaign Voting and partisanship Election issues The economy Many individuals have contributed to the Australian Election Study Politics and political parties over its more than thirty year history. The current team of investigators The left-right dimension includes Ian McAllister, Jill Sheppard, Clive Bean, Rachel The political leaders Gibson and Toni Makkai. Previous contributors include David Democracy and institutions Denemark, David Gow, Roger Jones, Anthony Mughan and Trade unions, business and wealth Juliet Pietsch. Anna Lethborg at the Social Research Centre fielded the 2019 survey. Steven Social issues McEachern, Marina McGale and Lawrence Rogers at the Australian Defence and foreign affairs Data Archive prepared the data for public release. Emily Downie, Ralph References Kenke, Ron Woods and Small Multiples have contributed to the Appendix: Methodology graphic design of this report. Martin Heskins in the ANU School of Politics and International Relations has provided support with project management. The Australian Election Study is funded by the Australian Research Council (details on p. 149). Last but not least, this research is made possible by the thousands of Australians who completed the Australian Election Study surveys and shared their opinions as captured in this report.

6 7 The election campaign Followed the election in the mass media Watched the leaders’ debates

Television Watched debate Radio Did not watch debate Newspapers Internet

63 79 59 55 71

52 68 65 70 48 60 58 57 42 42 56 40 54 53 37 36 47 47 34 44 33 32 43 32 31 42 30 30 40 29 28 27 26 35 26 25 32 30 23 21 21 21 18 20 30 19 22 18 17 16 17 17 21 18 15 15 19 17 16 15 12 14 14 15 10 11 7 3 2 1

8 The election campaign 9 The election campaign Interest in the election Contacted by candidate or political party

Care a good deal who wins the election Contacted by a party during the campaign A good deal of interest in the election

79 60 61 76 74 57 72 75 68 69 65 65 68 66 45 60

50 33 40 38 29 28 33 32 34 34 30

31 30

10 The election campaign 11 The election campaign Discussing the election campaign with others Involvement in the election campaign

Discuss politics Attend meeting Persuade others how to vote Work for party or candidate Contribute money to a political party or election candidate

84 82 12

75 76 11 74 10 73 72

68 67 9

8 8 7 49

42 5 5

35 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 18 18 3 3 2 3 3 2 15 2 15 14 14 3 2 3 2 11

12 The election campaign 13 The election campaign Websites accessed during the election campaign Online activity during the election campaign

Party or candidate campaign sites Signed up to receive information from a party or candidate Mainstream news media Shared unofﬁcial political content online Federal Parliament Joined a political group on a social networking site Australian Electoral Commission Unofﬁcial online videos

42 42

10 10 9

30 30

7 27

21 21 5 5

4 19 17 15 14 14

10 8 9 2 2 8 2 8 8 2 6 5 5

5 3 3 3 2 2 2

14 The election campaign 15 The election campaign Notes ‘contribute money to a political party or election candidate’; (2010) The election campaign Followed the election in the combined responses to ‘contribute mass media money to a political party or election Voting and partisanship Response categories for television, candidate by mail or phone’ and radio and newspapers are: ‘contribute money to a political Election issues (1967-1979) ‘yes’; (1987-1990) party or election candidate using ‘often’; (1993-2019) ‘a good deal’. the internet’. For 2001-2019 all The economy Response categories for internet estimates combine ‘frequently’ and are: (1998-2004) ‘many times’; ‘occasionally’. (2007-2019) ‘a good deal’. Politics and political parties Websites accessed during Watched the leaders’ debate the election campaign The left-right dimension Watched debate includes For party or candidate campaign respondents who watched one or sites the response categories are: The political leaders more of the debates in the election (2004-2007) ‘party site’, ‘your own campaign. Elections 1990 and MP’s site’, ‘individual candidate Democracy and institutions 1998-2016 each had one leaders’ site in your electorate’ and ‘other debate, in 1993 and 1996 there candidate/MPs sites outside your were two debates, and in 2019 electorate’; (2010-2013) ‘party Trade unions, business and wealth there were three debates. or candidate campaign sites’; (2016) ‘official party or candidate Social issues Contacted by candidate or campaign sites’; (2019) ‘official political party party or candidate campaign sites Defence and foreign affairs For contacted by a party during the (e.g. home pages, blogs, official campaign, the response categories Facebook profiles, official YouTube References are: (2001-2007) ‘Yes’; (2010) ‘Yes, channels)’. For unofficial online by telephone’, ‘Yes, by mail’, ‘Yes, videos, the response categories Appendix: Methodology by face-to-face’, and ‘Yes, by email are (2007) ‘YouTube; (2010-2013) or through the web’; (2013-2019) ‘unofficial online videos’; (2016) ‘Yes, by telephone’, ‘Yes, by mail’, ‘unofficial online content (i.e. ‘Yes, (2013: by) face-to-face’, ‘Yes, non-party produced campaign by text message or SMS’, ‘Yes, by material (e.g. YouTube))’; and email’, and ‘Yes, by social network (2019) ‘unofficial online content (i.e. site or other web-based method’. non-party campaign material e.g. YouTube)’. Discussing the election campaign with others Online activity during the For 2001 – 2016 estimates combine election campaign ‘frequently’ and ‘occasionally’. For ‘signed up to receive information from a party or candidate’ this Involvement in the election includes registering as their campaign follower/friend/supporter on For attend meeting, the response social media. categories are: (1969) ‘yes’; (1993-2019) ‘go to any political meetings or rallies’. For work for a party or candidate, the response categories are: (1969) ‘yes’; (1993-1998) ‘do any work for a political party or election candidate’; (2001- 2019) ‘show your support for a particular party or candidate by, for example (2019: e.g.), attending a meeting, putting up a poster, or in some other way’. For contribute money to a political party or election candidate, the response categories are: (1969) ‘yes’; (1993-2007, 2013-2019)

16 17 Voting and partisanship Timing of the voting decision The use of voter prompts on polling day

A long time ago Followed 'How to Vote' card for House of Representatives During the election campaign Voted above the line for Senate

60% 100% 55

88 88 88 87 86 84 50 50

50 47 46 80 45 45

42 42 42 37 40 38 37 36 35 34 37 56 37 60 35 32 53 35 52 50 51

31 47 30 43

40 23 34

20 29

20 10

0 0

18 Voting and partisanship 19 Voting and partisanship Split ticket voting — cast different vote in House of Representatives and Senate The extent of voting volatility

Split tickets Always voted for same party Considered voting for another party

40% 80%

72 35 69

70 63

30 60 29 61 30 30 60 27 55 27 27 27 53 52 50 49 48 50 46 22 45 40 39 20 40 17 34 34 16 16 30 30 29 29 29 30 25 25

25 23 22 10 20

0 0

20 Voting and partisanship 21 Voting and partisanship Considered changing vote during campaign Lifetime voting

Liberal-National voters Stable Liberal-National Labor voters Stable Labor

40% 38

36 35

40 32 33 37 32 29 36 30

33 27 27 25 31 25 25 25 30 23 28 24 22 22 23 22 27 27 27 23 21 27 25 23 24 19 24 20 19 25 20 20 17 18 22 20 17 20 19 18 14 17 17 14 16

22 Voting and partisanship 23 Voting and partisanship Considerations in the voting decision Destination of minor party votes in the House of Representatives

Party leaders Liberal-National Policy issues Labor Candidates in your electorate Not sure / don’t know Parties taken as a whole

70% 66 66 60%

59 51 50 60 50 54 47 47 52 52 44 49 50 41 40 41 49 47 40 35 38 35 36 35 40 34

29 30 26 29 25 24 30 24 26 26 26 25 22 24 22 21 24 23 19 20 18 20 19 18 19 20 20 16 15 15 14

9 9 9 10 8 8 8 10 7 6 6 9 7 6

0 0

24 Voting and partisanship 25 Voting and partisanship Destination of minor party votes in the Senate Difference between the parties

Liberal-National Good deal of difference Labor Some difference Not sure / don’t know Not much / no difference

52 50 49 47 47 46 46 46 45 45 45 45 44 44 43 43 41 40 40 40 39 38

33 37 33 32 32 32 32 31 30 31 30 30 30 28 28 27 27 27 25 25 24 24 24 27 24 23 26 24 22 21 19 21

17 17 16

26 Voting and partisanship 27 Voting and partisanship Direction of political partisanship Strength of political partisanship

Liberal Very strong Labor Fairly strong Greens Not very strong None

60% 60%

52 50 50 50 50 49 49 48 49 48 47 47 48 48 50 47 50 46 44 44 42 42 41 40 41

37 40 40 38 37 38 40 36 36 36 36 38 35 35 34 34 34 37 36 36 33 34 36 33 33 32 34 32 32 34 29 32 32 29 29 30 28 30 30 30 27

24 23 21 22 21 21 21 19 19 19 19 18 18 18 20 17 20 20 17 16 16 19 15 18 14 14 14 12 11 10 9 9 10 10 6 6 6 5 6 3 4 1 2

0 0

28 Voting and partisanship 29 Voting and partisanship Notes The election campaign Timing of the voting decision For 1990 – 2019 during the election Voting and partisanship campaign combines ‘in the first few weeks of the campaign’, ‘a few Election issues days before election day’ and ‘on election day’. The economy Split ticket voting Estimates are based on voters Politics and political parties preferring a different party in the House of Representatives The left-right dimension and the Senate. The Liberal and National parties are treated as a The political leaders single group. Democracy and institutions Trade unions, business and wealth Social issues Defence and foreign affairs References Appendix: Methodology

30 Voting and partisanship 31 Election issues Most important economic election issues Most important non-economic election issues

Unemployment Health Industrial relations Environment Education Global Warming Taxation Refugees and asylum seekers Management of the economy

27 28

24 24 23 23

21 21 18 20 19 17 16 16 16 16 15

15 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 9 11 11 9 11 10 8 8 10 7 7 7 8 6 6 6 7 6 6 5 5 4 6 6 4 3 3 3 5 2 2 4 4 3 4 1 1 3 3 2

32 Election issues 33 Election issues Preferred party policy on management of the economy Preferred party policy on education

ALP ALP Coalition Coalition No difference No difference

50% 70% 47

44 44

58 60

40 37

48 50

44 43 42 44 40 40 30 27 41 40 35 34 23 31 22 22 21 27 30 27 18 29 20 25 25 17 24 24 17 23 24 24

23 20 22 19 19 21 22 20 17 17 15

12 10

0 0

34 Election issues 35 Election issues Preferred party policy on taxation Preferred party policy on health

ALP ALP Coalition Coalition No difference No difference

50% 60%

45 53 42 41 41 48 39 39 50 46 40 45 36 44 43 34 41 41 33 33 33 39 32 40 37 31 30 38 37 28 37 30 27 27 27 27 32 25 24 29

21 30 27 22 26 26 28 27 19 24 23 25 20 18 22 17 21 18 20 18 14 20 17 17 18

14 13

11 10 8 11 10

0 0

36 Election issues 37 Election issues Preferred party policy on the environment Preferred party policy on global warming

ALP ALP Coalition Coalition No difference No difference

60% 60% 56 55 54

50 50

40 40

40 40 36 36 35 35 35 35 33 33 34 31 31 30 30 29 28 28 32 30 27 32 30 25 28 24 26 22 22 23 19 23 22 23 17 21 21 20 20 20 17 20 17 18 18 17 16 15

10 10

0 0

38 Election issues 39 Election issues Preferred party policy on immigration Preferred party policy on refugees and asylum seekers

ALP ALP Coalition Coalition No difference No difference

60% 50% 46

41 50 47 46 38 40 36 35 34 39 31 40 37 35 35 30 27 27 27 30 30 28 25 30 22 26 26 26 25 21 24 23 22 22 22 19 19 20 23 20 23 21 21 21 15 20 20

10 10

0 0

40 Election issues 41 Election issues Importance ofmanagementtheeconomyinvotedecision 42 Election issues Not veryimportant Quite important Extremely important 70 27 3

68 27 6

57 38 6

63 34 4

Importance ofeducationinvotedecision 43 Election issues Not veryimportant Quite important Extremely important 17 33 50 21 30 50 17 33 50

7 27 66

6 29 65

5 26 69

6 26 68

6 33 61 7 30 63

7 33 60

5 33 62

Importance of taxation in vote decision Importance of health in vote decision

Extremely important Extremely important Quite important Quite important Not very important Not very important

68 76 76 73 70 69 70 70 68 68 59 66

49 47 45 45 44 54 45 44 41 40 41 40 38 36 39 37

31 35

30 28 27 26 26 26 24 25 24 20 20 19 21 21 16 16 15

10 10 11

11 8 5 5 5 5 5 3 6 3 3 2

44 Election issues 45 Election issues Importance of the environment in vote decision Importance of global warming in vote decision

Extremely important Extremely important Quite important Quite important Not very important Not very important

52 59 47 53 52 52 44 42 47 47 40 46 45 44 37 41 42 44 44 35 40 43 34 42 33 42 42 41 36 30 37 35 26 26

19 18 16

14 12 13 12 13 11 10 9 8 5

46 Election issues 47 Election issues Importance of immigration in vote decision Importance of refugees and asylum seekers in vote decision

Extremely important Extremely important Quite important Quite important Not very important Not very important

51 50

46 46 46 45 44 44 43 42 41 40 39 39 37 36 36 35 35 34 33 37 33 33

30 30 32 32 31 30 29 26 25 24 23 21 20 20 19 18

48 Election issues 49 Election issues Notes The election campaign Most important economic election issues Voting and partisanship ‘Taxation’ was not included in 1993. Election issues Most important non-economic election issues The economy In 1996 – 2019 estimates for health are for ‘Health and Medicare’. ‘Refugees and asylum seekers’ Politics and political parties was not included in 2007. The left-right dimension The political leaders Democracy and institutions Trade unions, business and wealth Social issues Defence and foreign affairs References Appendix: Methodology

50 Election issues 51 The economy Financial situation of household over past year Financial situation of country over past year

Become better Become better Become worse Become worse About the same About the same

74 54 52

50 49 48 46 62 45 45 43 44 42 41 41

38 38 35 35 47 47 35 46 33 36 45 43 32 46 43 41 28 38 28 30 36 42 36 27 36 36 34 38 36 31 35 35 30 29 28 21 21 23 20 20 19 19 18 18 22 22 26 15 18 13 18 17 16 16 15

10 8

52 The economy 53 The economy Government effect on household ﬁnances over past year Government effect on country's ﬁnances over past year

Good effect Good effect Not much difference Not much difference Bad effect Bad effect

77 80% 75 80% 74

69 68 69 67 70 66 70

59 63 57 60 60 60 56 57 57 52 52

50 50 47 47 50 50

44 46 40 40 38 39 40 40 37 35 31 31 30 29 29 29 31 28 30 30 27 25 25 29 22 22 22 25 19 23 19 19 20 17 20 19 16 13 13 13 16 15 12 10 10 10 13 8 8 10 6 10 5 9 5 4 8 7

0 0

54 The economy 55 The economy Financial situation of household in a year's time Financial situation of country in a year's time

Will be better Will be better Will be worse Will be worse About the same About the same

60%

50 50 49 49 49 49 48 50 46 46 44 43 42 42 43 39 39 42 40 40 38 40 37 37 36 36 36 35 39 36 33 36 32 31 30 29 30 28 28 30 29 27 27 27 28 26 26 28 27 25 24 24 25 24 23 23 22 22 22 22 21 20 20 19 18 16

56 The economy 57 The economy Government effect on household ﬁnances in a year's time Government effect on country's economy in a year's time

Good effect Good effect Bad effect Bad effect No difference No difference

80%

73 73 73 70 68 67 67 66 70 69 64 63 61 59 58 61 61 60 56 56

50 51 49

40 33 31 31

26 30 25 25 26 23 23 21 22 22 21 20 19 19 18 18 18 21 18 22 17 20 16 18 19 19 18 13 17 17 17 13 14 12 13 12 11 11 11 10 9 7

58 The economy 59 The economy Government spending on health Government spending on education

More than now More than now The same as now The same as now Less than now Less than now

73 79 78 69

62 68

27 28 25

19 19

5 4 4 3 2 2

60 The economy 61 The economy Government spendingonunemploymentbenefits 62 Theeconomy Less thannow The sameasnow More thannow 20 33 48

18 36 47

25 33 42

Government spendingondefence 63 Theeconomy Less thannow The sameasnow More thannow 24 27 49

24 27 49

22 29 48

64 Theeconomy Government spendingonold-agepensions Less thannow The sameasnow More thannow 4 31 65

7 40 53

4 28 68

Government spendingonbusinessandindustry 65 Theeconomy Less thannow The sameasnow More thannow 17 34 48

22 27 51

21 28 52

Government spendingonpoliceandlawenforcement 66 Theeconomy Less thannow The sameasnow More thannow 7 41 52

9 47 45

7 41 53

67 Theeconomy If lostjobhoweasytofindanotherin12months Difﬁcult Easy 65 36

68 32

56 44

If spouse/partnerlostjobhoweasytofindanotherin12months 68 Theeconomy Do nothaveapartner Difﬁcult Easy 23 28 48

26 26 48

24 35 41

69 Theeconomy Notes The election campaign Financial situation of household If spouse / partner lost job over past year how easy to find another in 12 Voting and partisanship For become better, estimates months combine ‘a lot better’ and ‘a In 2019 ‘Do not have a job’ was Election issues little better’. For become worse, included in the list of responses estimates combine ‘a little worse’ although was dropped from the The economy and ‘a lot worse’. analyses for comparability with 2013 and 2016. Financial situation of country Politics and political parties over past year For become better, estimates The left-right dimension combine ‘a lot better’ and ‘a little better’. For become worse, The political leaders estimates combine ‘a little worse’ and ‘a lot worse’. Democracy and institutions Financial situation of household in a year’s time Trade unions, business and wealth For will be better, estimates combine ‘a lot better’ and ‘a little Social issues better’. For will be worse, estimates combine ‘a little worse’ and ‘a lot Defence and foreign affairs worse’. References Financial situation of country in a year’s time Appendix: Methodology For will be better, estimates combine ‘a lot better’ and ‘a little better’. For will be worse, estimates combine ‘a little worse’ and ‘a lot worse’.

Government spending Estimates show whether respondents think there should be more or less public expenditure in various policy areas. For more than now, estimates combine ‘much more than now’ and ‘somewhat more than now’. For less than now, estimates combine ‘somewhat less than now’ and ‘much less than now’.

If lost job how easy to find another in 12 months In 2019 ‘Do not have a job’ was included in the list of responses although was dropped from the analyses for comparability with 2013 and 2016.

70 The economy 71 Politics and political parties Interest in politics Compulsory voting and likelihood of voting if voluntary

A good deal Supports compulsory voting Some Would have voted if voluntary Not much None

50% 100% 47 47 46 46 46 46 45 45 44 45 89 44 44 43 86 86 42 85 83

80 80 80 39 79 77 77 76 40 38 80 74 37 72 36 72 35 71 70 70 37 69 70 69 68 34 34 64 34 33 31 32 32 32

30 60 26 27

23 22

20 20 19 18 18 20 18 18 17 40

15 15 15 16 12 14

10 20 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

0 0

72 Politics and political parties 73 Politics and political parties Political participation in the past ﬁve years Political participation in the past ﬁve years

Contacted ofﬁcial via email Taken part in a protest Contacted ofﬁcial in person or in writing Signed a written petition Worked together with others Signed an online petition

35% 80%

29 70 30

24 60 56 24 25 23 23 23 22

48 50 20 19 19 44 44 44 43 20 18

17 17 39 37 40 15 15

15 13 29 30

21 10 20 17

13 14 12 13 12 12 11 10 5 12 10

0 0

74 Politics and political parties 75 Politics and political parties Feelings about political parties Feelings about political parties (continued)

Liberal Greens Labor Democrat National One Nation

Estimates are means Estimates are means The scale runs from 0 (strongly dislike party) The scale runs from 0 (strongly dislike party) to 10 (strongly like party) with a designated to 10 (strongly like party) with a designated midpoint of 5 (neither like nor dislike). midpoint of 5 (neither like nor dislike).

5.9 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.0 5.7 5.6

5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.4 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.3 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.9

3.0 3.0 2.6 2.6

2.3

2.0 2.0

76 Politics and political parties 77 Politics and political parties Perceptions of the role of political parties

Good deal of difference between parties Parties care what people think Parties necessary to make political system work

90%

77 80 74 71

68 68 68 69 70 65 63

50 44

40 40 40

32 32 31 30 30 28 30 27 30 30 24 28 23 26 21 24 22 22 20

78 Politics and political parties 79 Notes Political participation in the past five years (continued) The election campaign Compulsory voting and For taken part in a protest, the likelihood of voting if voluntary response categories are: (1987) Voting and partisanship For supports compulsory voting, ‘attending lawful demonstrations’; estimates are: (1967-1979) (2001-2019) ‘taken part in a Election issues ‘compulsory better’; (1987-2019) protest, march or demonstration’. ‘favour compulsory voting’ and For signed an online petition, ‘strongly favour compulsory voting’. the response categories are: The economy For would have voted if voluntary, (2004-2007) ‘signed an electronic estimates combine ‘definitely would petition’; (2010-2019) ‘signed an Politics and political parties have voted’ and ‘probably would online or e-petition’. Unlike 2001- have voted’. 2019, the 1987 estimate does not The left-right dimension refer to the past five years only. Political participation in the The political leaders past five years Perceptions of the role of For contacted official via email the political parties Democracy and institutions response category is: (2010- For parties care what people think 2019) ‘contacted a politician or and parties necessary to make government official by email’. For political system work, estimates Trade unions, business and wealth contacted official in person or in combine ‘1’ and ‘2’ on the five writing the response categories are: point scale. Social issues (2001-2007) ‘contacted a politician or government official either in Defence and foreign affairs person, or in writing, or some other way’; (2010-2019) ‘contacted a References politician or government official either in person, or in writing’. For worked together with others the Appendix: Methodology response category is: (2001-2019) ‘worked together with people who shared the same concern’.

80 Politics and political parties 81 The left-right dimension midpoint of5(neitherleftnorright). 0 (farleft)to10right)withadesignated The politicalleft-rightscalerunsfrom Estimates are means 82 Theleft-right dimension Voters' left-rightposition 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Left-right position 5.46

5.36

5.30

5.34

5.29

5.03 5.03

4.91

4.98

The politicalleft-rightscalerunsfrom Estimates are means 83 Theleft-right dimension midpoint of5(neitherleftnorright). 0 (farleft)to10right)withadesignated Where votersplacethepartiesonleft-rightscale Greens Liberal Labor 3.8 4.3 4.7 6.5 6.5

6.4 3.7 4.5 4.7 6.1 6.5

6.3 3.7 4.4 4.7 5.9 6.5 National One Nation Democrat 6.6 3.2 4.3 4.4 5.9 7.0 6.6 3.6 4.4 6.9

6.1 3.3 4.2 6.3

6.2 3.0 4.2 6.5

6.3 3.0 4.0 6.3

6.5 2.7 3.9 6.5

The election campaign Voting and partisanship Election issues The economy Politics and political parties The left-right dimension The political leaders Democracy and institutions Trade unions, business and wealth Social issues Defence and foreign affairs References Appendix: Methodology

84 The left-right dimension 85 The political leaders How politicians were rated

1987 Bob Hawke* 6.22 1987 John Howard* 4.87 Andrew Peacock 4.84 Janine Haines 4.71 Paul Keating 4.34 Ian Sinclair 3.58 Joh Bjelke-Petersen 2.58 1990 Bob Hawke* 5.46 1990 Andrew Peacock* 3.87 Janine Haines 5.12 John Howard 4.93 Paul Keating 4.01 Charles Blunt 3.60 1993 Paul Keating* 4.74 1993 John Hewson* 5.18 Tim Fischer 4.12 John Coulter 3.27 1996 John Howard* 5.73 1996 Paul Keating* 4.21 Cheryl Kernot 5.36 Tim Fischer 4.77 1998 John Howard* 5.31 1998 Estimates are means How politicians were rated Kim Beazley* 6.11 How politicians were rated The scale runs from 0 (strongly dislike politician) to 10 (strongly like politician) with a designated midpointTim Fischer of 5 (neither like nor dislike). 4.76 Cherylelection Kernot winners 4.35 main party leaders *Peter Costello 4.27

Gareth Evans 3.54 Pauline Hanson 2.34

2001 John Howard* 5.56 2001 1987 Bob Hawke* 6.22 1987 Kim Beazley* 5.73 John Howard* 4.87 Natasha Stott-Despoja 5.01 Andrew Peacock 4.84 John Anderson 4.92 Janine Haines 4.71 Bob Brown 4.37 Paul Keating 4.34 Peter Costello 4.29 Ian Sinclair 3.58 Simon Crean 4.01 Joh Bjelke-Petersen 2.58 Pauline Hanson 2.56 1990 Bob Hawke* 5.46 1990 2004 John Howard* 5.71 2004 Andrew Peacock* 3.87 Mark Latham* 5.04 Janine Haines 5.12 John Anderson 5.22 John Howard 4.93 Peter Costello 4.72 Paul Keating 4.01 Bob Brown 4.01 Charles Blunt 3.60 Andrew Bartlett 3.96 1993 Paul Keating* 4.74 1993 Simon Crean 3.79 John Hewson* 5.18 Pauline Hanson 3.19 Tim Fischer 4.12 2007 Kevin Rudd* 6.31 2007 John Coulter 3.27 John Howard* 5.14 1996 John Howard* 5.73 1996 Julia Gillard 5.19 Paul Keating* 4.21 Mark Vaile 4.61 Cheryl Kernot 5.36 Bob Brown 4.48 Tim Fischer 4.77 Peter Costello 4.13 1998 John Howard* 5.31 1998 2010 Julia Gillard* 4.89 2010 Kim Beazley* 6.11 Tony Abbott* 4.26 Tim Fischer 4.76 Kevin Rudd 5.01 Cheryl Kernot 4.35 Warren Truss 4.12 Peter Costello 4.27 Bob Brown 4.11 Gareth Evans 3.54 Wayne Swan 4.03 Pauline Hanson 2.34 2013 Tony Abbott* 4.29 2013 2001 John Howard* 5.56 2001 Kevin Rudd* 4.07 Kim Beazley* 5.73 Warren Truss 4.34 Natasha Stott-Despoja 5.01 Julia Gillard 4.04 John Anderson 4.92 Christine Milne 3.81 Bob Brown 4.37 86 The political leaders 2016 87Malcolm The political Turnbull* leaders 4.94 2016 Peter Costello 4.29 Bill Shorten* 4.22 Simon Crean 4.01 Barnaby Joyce 4.13 Pauline Hanson 2.56 Richard Di Natale 4.12 2004 John Howard* 5.71 2004 Tony Abbott 3.60 Mark Latham* 5.04 2019 Scott Morrison* 2019 John Anderson 5.22 5.14 Bill Shorten* 3.97 Peter Costello 4.72 Malcolm Turnbull Bob Brown 4.01 4.76 Michael McCormack 4.38 Andrew Bartlett 3.96 Richard Di Natale Simon Crean 3.79 4.02 Pauline Hanson 3.19

2007 Kevin Rudd* 6.31 2007 John Howard* 5.14 Julia Gillard 5.19 Mark Vaile 4.61 Bob Brown 4.48 Peter Costello 4.13

2010 Julia Gillard* 4.89 2010 Tony Abbott* 4.26 Kevin Rudd 5.01 Warren Truss 4.12 Bob Brown 4.11 Wayne Swan 4.03

2013 Tony Abbott* 4.29 2013 Kevin Rudd* 4.07 Warren Truss 4.34 Julia Gillard 4.04 Christine Milne 3.81

2016 Malcolm Turnbull* 4.94 2016 Bill Shorten* 4.22 Barnaby Joyce 4.13 Richard Di Natale 4.12 Tony Abbott 3.60

2019 Scott Morrison* 5.14 2019 Bill Shorten* 3.97

Malcolm Turnbull 4.76 Michael McCormack 4.38

Richard Di Natale 4.02 How politicians were rated

1987 Bob Hawke* 6.22 1987 John Howard* 4.87 Andrew Peacock 4.84 Janine Haines 4.71 Paul Keating 4.34 Ian Sinclair 3.58 Joh Bjelke-Petersen 2.58 1990 Bob Hawke* 5.46 1990 Andrew Peacock* 3.87 Janine Haines 5.12 John Howard 4.93 Paul Keating 4.01 Charles Blunt 3.60 1993 Paul Keating* 4.74 1993 John Hewson* 5.18 Tim Fischer 4.12 John Coulter 3.27 1996 John Howard* 5.73 1996 Paul Keating* 4.21 Cheryl Kernot 5.36 Tim Fischer 4.77 1998 John Howard* 5.31 1998 Kim Beazley* 6.11 Tim Fischer 4.76 Cheryl Kernot 4.35 Peter Costello 4.27 Gareth Evans 3.54 Pauline Hanson 2.34

2001 John Howard* 5.56 2001 Kim Beazley* 5.73 Natasha Stott-Despoja 5.01 John Anderson 4.92 Bob Brown 4.37 Peter Costello 4.29 Simon Crean 4.01 Pauline Hanson 2.56

2004 John Howard* 5.71 2004 Mark Latham* 5.04 John Anderson 5.22 Peter Costello 4.72 Bob Brown 4.01 Andrew Bartlett 3.96 Simon Crean 3.79 Pauline Hanson 3.19

2007 Kevin Rudd* 6.31 2007 John Howard* 5.14 Julia Gillard 5.19 Mark Vaile 4.61 Bob Brown 4.48 Peter Costello 4.13

2010 HowJulia Gillard*politicians were rated (continued) 4.89 2010 Tony Abbott* 4.26 Kevin Rudd 5.01 Warren Truss 4.12 Bob Brown 4.11 Wayne Swan 4.03

2013 Tony Abbott* 4.29 2013 Kevin Rudd* 4.07 Warren Truss 4.34 Julia Gillard 4.04 Christine Milne 3.81

2016 Malcolm Turnbull* 4.94 2016 Bill Shorten* 4.22 Barnaby Joyce 4.13 Richard Di Natale 4.12 Tony Abbott 3.60

2019 Scott Morrison* 5.14 2019 Bill Shorten* 3.97

Malcolm Turnbull 4.76 Michael McCormack 4.38

Richard Di Natale 4.02

88 The political leaders 89 The political leaders Leader characteristics Estimates are percentages Estimates combine the percentage who responded that the characteristic described the leader extremely well or quite well. election winners

1993 1998 Paul Keating John Hewson John Howard Kim Beazley

Intelligent Inspiring Intelligent Honest

Knowledgeable Moral Knowledgeable Inspiring Sensible Decent Sensible Moral

Strong leadership Reliable Strong leadership Reliable

Compassionate Dependable Compassionate Dependable

1996 2001 John Howard Paul Keating John Howard Kim Beazley

Intelligent Inspiring Intelligent Compassionate Knowledgeable Honest Knowledgeable Moral

Sensible Reliable Sensible Trustworthy

Strong leadership Dependable Strong leadership Inspiring

Compassionate Arrogant Honest

90 The political leaders 91 The political leaders Leader characteristics Estimates are percentages Estimates combine the percentage who responded that the characteristic described the leader extremely well or quite well. election winners

2004 2010 John Howard Mark Latham Julia Gillard Tony Abbott

Intelligent Compassionate Intelligent Compassionate Knowledgeable Honest Knowledgeable Honest Sensible Trustworthy Sensible Trustworthy

Strong leadership Inspiring Competent Inspiring Strong leadership

2007 2013 Kevin Rudd John Howard Tony Abbott Kevin Rudd

Intelligent Compassionate Intelligent Compassionate

Knowledgeable Honest Knowledgeable Honest

Sensible Trustworthy Sensible Trustworthy

Competent Inspiring Competent Inspiring

Strong leadership Strong leadership

92 The political leaders 93 The political leaders Leader characteristics Attitudes towards the leadership changes

Estimates are percentages Estimates are percentages Estimates combine the percentage who Question asked whether respondents approved responded that the characteristic described the or disapproved of the way the party (Labor, 2010 & leader extremely well or quite well. 2013; Liberal 2016 & 2019) handled the respective leadership changes. For approve, estimates election winners combine ‘strongly approve’ and ‘approve’. For disapprove, estimates combine ‘disapprove’ andX.X ‘strongly Attitudes disapprove’. towards the leadership changes

2016 Approve Disapprove Malcolm Turnbull Bill Shorten

Intelligent Compassionate 2010 lia illar relace ein R Knowledgeable Honest 2013 ein R relace Sensible Trustworthy lia illar 2015 alcol rnll relace Competent Inspiring on Aott 2018 Strong leadership Scott orrison relace alcol rnll

2019 Scott Morrison Bill Shorten

Intelligent Compassionate

Knowledgeable Honest

Sensible Trustworthy Competent Inspiring Strong leadership

94 The political leaders 95 The political leaders The election campaign Voting and partisanship Election issues The economy Politics and political parties The left-right dimension The political leaders Democracy and institutions Trade unions, business and wealth Social issues Defence and foreign affairs References Appendix: Methodology

96 97 Democracy and institutions Satisfaction with democracy Trust in government

Satisﬁed with democracy People in government look after themselves Not satisﬁed with democracy People in government can be trusted

90% 86 80% 75 74 82 71 78 77 68 80 70 66 67 66 72 63 74 61 71 72 70 57 60

59 51 60 60 52 48 56 50 49 43 50 45 40

40 37 40 41 34 40 32 34 34

30 26 29 29 29 25 30 26 28

23 18 20 22 20

14 10 10

0 0

98 Democracy and institutions 99 Democracy and institutions Who the government is run for Political efﬁcacy and the use of the vote

Few big interests Who people vote for can make a big difference All the people Who people vote for won’t make any difference

60% 80% 56 56

53 70 68 70 66 48 64 64 64 63 50 47

44 58 57 42 60

38 40

30 40

21 20 30

20 17 16 21 20 19 18 17 12 12 20 12 12 16 13 14

10 10

0 0

100 Democracy and institutions 101 Democracy and institutions Makes a difference who is in power Politicians know what ordinary people think

It makes a big difference who is in power Politicians know what ordinary people think It doesn't make any difference who is in power Politicians don't know what ordinary people think

80% 60%

53 52 68 67 70 49 48 50 60 60 58 43 60 42 55

51 40

50 35

40 30

23 21 22 30 24 20 16 22 21 16 20 15 14 20 17 16

13 10

0 0

102 Democracy and institutions 103 Democracy and institutions The Queen, the ﬂag and republicanism Government control of parliament

Queen important Better when government does not control Senate Favour republic Better when government controls both houses Favour ﬂag change

70% 66 60% 64 62 52 60 60 59 51 58 60 50 47 53 54 53 53 43 44 49 42 41 40 50 47 43 40

44 40 43 43 39 42 39 39 37 34 40 39 36 37 40 34 36

31 35 32 30 34 31

30 30 29

10 10

0 0

104 Democracy and institutions 105 Democracy and institutions Notes Political efficacy and the use of the vote The election campaign Satisfaction with democracy For who people vote for can make For satisfied with democracy, a big difference, estimates combine Voting and partisanship the response categories are: codes ‘1’ and ‘2’. For who people (1969-1979, 1998-2019) ‘very vote for won’t make any difference, Election issues satisfied’ and ‘fairly satisfied’ estimates combine codes ‘4’ combined; (1996) ‘satisfied’ and and ‘5’. The economy ‘fairly satisfied’ combined. For not satisfied with democracy, the Makes a difference response categories are: (1969- who is in power Politics and political parties 1979) ‘not satisfied’; (1996-2019) For it makes a big difference who ‘not very satisfied’ and ‘not at all is in power, estimates combine The left-right dimension satisfied’ combined. codes ‘1’ and ‘2’. For it doesn’t make any difference who is in The political leaders Trust in government power, estimates combine codes For people in government look ‘4’ and ‘5’. Democracy and institutions after themselves, the response categories are: (1969, 1979) look Politicians know what after self; (1993-2019) ‘usually look ordinary people think Trade unions, business and wealth after themselves’ and ‘sometimes For politicians know what ordinary look after themselves’ combined. people think, estimates combine Social issues For people in government can be codes ‘1’ and ‘2’. For politicians trusted, the response categories don’t know what ordinary people Defence and foreign affairs are: (1969, 1979) ‘do the right think estimates combine codes ‘4’ thing’; (1993-2019) ‘sometimes and ‘5’. References can be trusted to do the right thing’ and ‘usually can be trusted to do The Queen, the flag Appendix: Methodology the right thing’ combined. and republicanism For Queen important, estimates Who the government is run for combine ‘very important’ and ‘fairly For ‘few big interests’, estimates important’. For favour republic, combine ‘entirely run for the big estimates combine (1993 – 2019) interests’ and ‘mostly run for the ‘strongly favour becoming republic’ big interests’. For ‘all the people’, and ‘favour becoming republic’. estimates combine ‘mostly run for For favour flag change, estimates the benefit of all’ and ‘entirely run combine ‘strongly for flag change’ for the benefit of all’. and ‘for flag change’.

Government control of parliament The question was not asked in 1996.

106 Democracy and institutions 107 Trade unions, business and wealth The power of trade unions and big business Class self-image

Unions have too much power Upper Big business has too much power Middle Working

100% 70%

82 57 60 57 57 57 54 54 76 53 80 53 74 51 51 72 49 50 71 72 72 50 50 68 69 48 71 50 65 69 50 46 49 65 48 44 48 62 62 48 44 44 66 43 60 42 42 62 62 60 60 41 52 53 40

49 48 47 51 45

41 42

37 30 40

2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1

0 0

108 Trade unions, business and wealth 109 Trade unions, business and wealth Trade union membership and support for industrial action Government spending: less tax or more social services

Belong to union Favours less tax Stricter laws for unions Favours spending more on social services

80% 70% 65

68 70 57 60 55 62

59 60 55 53 50 47 47

49 49 42 46 46 50 44 39 37 37 42 42 40 36 41 35 34 40 36 34 35 30 32 30 30 30 26 30 30 26 28 24 25 24 23 26 26 21 18 20 17 18 19 20 15

10 10

0 0

110 Trade unions, business and wealth 111 Trade unions, business and wealth Redistribution of income and wealth High tax makes people unwilling to work

Income and wealth should be redistributed Agree Income and wealth should not be redistributed Disagree

60% 100% 56 55

53 51 51 51 51 50 50

50 46 76 80 47 74

42 65 40 61 61 35 34 60

48 47 30 45

25 26 23 22 21 40 20 19 20 30 19 19 26 26 18

17 18 20 16 13 10 11 10

0 0

112 Trade unions, business and wealth 113 Trade unions, business and wealth Notes The election campaign The power of trade unions and big business Voting and partisanship For unions have too much power, estimates for 1990 – 2019 combine Election issues ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’. For big business has too much power, The economy estimates for 1990 – 2019 combine ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’. Politics and political parties Class self-image From 2010 – 2019 ‘None’ was The left-right dimension included in the list of responses and percentages adjusted accordingly. The political leaders Trade union membership and Democracy and institutions support for industrial action Estimates for stricter laws for unions combine ‘strongly agree’ Trade unions, business and wealth and ‘agree’. Social issues Government spending: less tax or more social services Defence and foreign affairs For favours less tax, estimates combine ‘strongly favour reducing References taxes’ and ‘mildly favour reducing taxes’. For favours spending more Appendix: Methodology on social services, estimates combine ‘mildly favour spending more on social services’ and ‘strongly favour spending more on social services’.

Redistribution of income and wealth For income and wealth should be redistributed, estimates combine ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’. For income and wealth should not be redistributed, estimates combine ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’.

High tax makes people unwilling to work ‘Agree’ combines ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’. ‘Disagree’ combines ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’.

114 Trade unions, business and wealth 115 Social issues Attitudes towards sex and nudity in ﬁlms and magazines Attitudes towards abortion

Gone too far Obtain readily Not gone far enough Special circumstances About right Banned

70% 80%

69 59 70 66 60 57 56 54 63 54 61 61 53 61 59 50 49 60 48 48 55 50 46 46 53 56 44 53 43 49 41 45 50 39 43 38 37 40 37 40 46 42

39 32 37 40 41 33 39 35 33 35 30 34 30 27 30

20 20

12 11 10 11 10 9 9 8 8 8 8 10 7 10 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4

0 0

116 Social issues 117 Social issues Attitudes towards the legal status of marijuana Attitudes towards jail sentences and capital punishment

Marijuana should be a criminal offence Stiffer sentences for criminals Marijuana should not be a criminal offence Reintroduce death penalty for murder

60% 100%

50 50 50 82 81 81 79 50 47 47 46 45 80 74 44 44 44 43 71 71 70 70 69 68 67 66 65 65 40 60 36 35 35 35 34 57 33 60 32 31 51 29 32 48 30 45 44 43 28 40

20 10

0 0

118 Social issues 119 Social issues Attitudes towards policies on Indigenous Australians Attitudes towards gender equality

Government help for Indigenous Australians gone too far Equal opportunity for women gone too far Transfer of land rights to Indigenous Australians gone too far Women should be given preferential treatment Should increase business opportunities for women

70% 60%

53 61 51 59 50 60 55 55 50 46 55 44 54 50 43 42 41 50 39 45 47 40 40 44 44

40 36 35 34 31 30 35 30 30 31 30 30 28 21

18 20 18

12 13 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 8 10 8 9 9 7 8 10 6 9 9

0 0

120 Social issues 121 Social issues Attitudes towards asylum seeker arrivals by boat Attitudes towards immigrants and immigration

Boats should be turned back Equal opportunity for migrants gone too far Boats should not be turned back Number of migrants allowed into Australia gone too far

70% 80%

62 70

70 60 63 54 58 51 50 49 60 48 50 52

50 45 44 44 44 40 42 40 40 34 33 37 37 40 35 35 29 28 28 31 32 30 34 35 28 30

20 27

20 21 20

10 10

0 0

122 Social issues 123 Social issues Attitudes towards the level of immigration into Australia The consequences of immigration

Increase immigration Immigrants increase crime rate Keep immigration levels the same Immigrants good for economy Reduce immigration Immigrants take jobs away from Australian born Immigrants make Australia more open to ideas and cultures

70% 90%

63 81 79 80 78 80 75 60 73 72 69 70 52 70 49 48 50 46 60 59 57 60 56 54 54 54 41 52 52 50 38 38 39 41 42 40 47 47 50 35 37 43 43 35 32 32 41 41 40 30 37 37 28 40 36 35 30 26 35 35 25 24 24 30 31 30 29 21 30

20 16 15 14 20

9 10 10

0 0

124 Social issues 125 Social issues Materialist and postmaterialist values Threat of global warming

Materialist Serious threat Mixed Not a serious threat Postmaterialist

80% 70% 68

67 70 66 64 64 60 56 62 62 55 61 62 62 62

59 60 50

45 44

38 40

33 40

30 30 27 30 26 24 21 22 21 19 19 20 18 18 17 20 16 18 18 14 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10

0 0

126 Social issues 127 Social issues Notes Attitudes towards policies on Attitudes towards the level of Indigenous Australians immigration into Australia The election campaign Attitudes towards nudity and For government help for Indigenous For increase immigration, estimates sex in films and magazines Australians gone too far, the combine ‘increased a lot’ and Voting and partisanship For nudity and sex in films and estimates for 1993 – 2019 combine ‘increased a little’. For keep magazines gone too far, estimates ‘much too far’ and ‘too far’. For immigration levels the same, Election issues for 1990 – 2019 combine ‘gone transfer of land rights to Indigenous estimates are for ‘remain about the much too far’ and ‘gone too far’. Australians gone too far, the same’. For reduce immigration, The economy For nudity and sex in films and estimates for 1990 – 2019 combine estimates combine ‘reduced a little’ magazines not gone far enough, ‘much too far’ and ‘too far’. and ‘reduced a lot’. estimates for 1990 – 2019 combine Transfer of land rights to Indigenous Politics and political parties ‘not gone far enough’ and ‘not Australians was not included The consequences of gone nearly far enough’. in 1993. immigration The left-right dimension For immigrants increase crime rate, Attitudes towards abortion Attitudes towards immigrants good for economy, The political leaders From 2010 – 2019 ‘Don’t know’ gender equality immigrants take jobs away from was included in the list of responses For equal opportunity for women Australian born, immigrants make Democracy and institutions and percentages adjusted gone too far, estimates combine Australia more open to ideas and accordingly. ‘much too far’ and ‘too far’. cultures, the response categories For women should be given are (1996 – 2019) ‘strongly agree’ Trade unions, business and wealth Attitudes towards the legal preferential treatment, estimates and ‘agree’. status of marijuana combine ‘strongly agree’ and Social issues For marijuana should not be ‘agree’. For should increase Threat of global warming a criminal offence, estimates business opportunities for women, Question asks ‘How serious a Defence and foreign affairs combine ‘strongly agree’ and estimates combine ‘strongly agree’ threat do you think global warming ‘agree’. For marijuana should and ‘agree’. will pose to you or your way of life References be a criminal offence, estimates in your lifetime?’ ‘Serious threat’ combine ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly Attitudes towards asylum combines ‘very serious’ and ‘fairly Appendix: Methodology disagree’. seeker arrivals by boat serious’. ‘Not a serious threat’ For boats should be turned back, combines ‘not very serious’ and Attitudes towards jail sentences estimates combine ‘ strongly agree’ ‘not at all serious’. and capital punishment and ‘agree’. For boats should not For stiffer sentences for criminals, be turned back, estimates combine estimates combine ‘strongly agree’ ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’. and ‘agree’. For reintroduce death This question was not included penalty for murder, estimates in 2007. combine ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’. Attitudes towards immigrants and immigration For equal opportunity for migrants gone too far, the response categories are ‘much too far’ and ‘too far’. For number of migrants allowed into Australia gone too far, the response categories are ‘much too far’ and ‘too far’.

128 129 Defence and foreign affairs Attitudes towards Australia's defence capability Support for war on terrorism

Australia able to defend itself if attacked Agree Australia's defence stronger than 10 years ago Disagree

70% 80%

69 70 60 55 54

57 50 60

50 53 45 52 52 52

41 50 44 40 39

31 40 31 30 32 28 28 30

23 23 30 25

19 21 21 20 21 20 20 15 20 16 20

10 10

0 0

130 Defence and foreign affairs 131 Defence and foreign affairs Indonesia as a security threat to Australia China as a security threat to Australia

Very likely Very likely Fairly likely Fairly likely Not very likely Not very likely

60% 70% 55

50 58 48 60 50 54 45 43 42 49 48 41 39 50 39 44 40 43 36 36 42 38 38 35 41

32 38 42 38 41 31 40 40 35 29 28 33 30 32 32

28 27 24 27 23 23 30

26 20 16 19 15 20 18 12 15 14 14

10 10 9 8 10

0 0

132 Defence and foreign affairs 133 Defence and foreign affairs Japan as a security threat to Australia Malaysia as a security threat to Australia

Very likely Very likely Fairly likely Fairly likely Not very likely Not very likely

100% 80% 76 76

70 86 86 84 70 66 66 82 81 80 65 79 63 62 80

69 60 68

50 60

31 30 40 29 30 26 27 24

19 19 18 21 21 20

17 20 15 14 14 12 11 11 10 8 9 8 7 7 10 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 4

0 0

134 Defence and foreign affairs 135 Defence and foreign affairs Vietnam as a security threat to Australia The United States as a security threat to Australia

Very likely Very likely Fairly likely Fairly likely Not very likely Not very likely

100% 100% 92 93 91 90 89 89 88 88 87

83 83 81 80 80 80 78 76 80 75 80

60 60

40 40

20 19 17 17 20 16 16 20 16 14 13

10 10 8 7 8 8 6 5 5 6 6 7 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 6 2 2

0 0

136 Defence and foreign affairs 137 Defence and foreign affairs Attitudes towards defence links with the United States Attitudes towards closer relations with Asia

United States alliance under ANZUS important Relations with Asia gone too far Trust in the United States to come to Australia's defence Relations with Asia about right Relations with Asia not gone far enough

100% 70%

60 58 60 56 55 56 54 90 52 89 51 90 88 87 87 50 86 85

83 84 84 82 40 81 36 80 80 80 34 80 79 29 30 27 25 22 25 23 75 22 73 24 21 20 21 70 69 16 69 15 15 15 13 13 10

60 0

138 Defence and foreign affairs 139 Defence and foreign affairs Attitudes towards more trade relations with Asia

Agree Not sure Disagree

80%

71 69 66 67 70 65 66 63 62

57 60 55

33 30 29 29 28 30 26 26 25 24 22

20 15

11 9 9 9 8 8 7 10 6 7

140 Defence and foreign affairs 141 Notes The election campaign Attitudes towards Australia’s defence capability Voting and partisanship For Australia able to defend itself if attacked and Australia’s defence Election issues stronger than 10 years ago, estimates combine ‘strongly agree’ The economy and ‘agree’.

Support for war on terrorism Politics and political parties Question asks whether ‘Australia should provide military assistance The left-right dimension for the war on terrorism’. ‘Agree’ combines ‘strongly agree’ and The political leaders ‘agree’. ‘Disagree’ combines ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’. Democracy and institutions Attitudes towards defence links with the United States Trade unions, business and wealth For United States alliance under ANZUS important, estimates Social issues combine ‘very important’ and ‘fairly important’. For trust in the Defence and foreign affairs United States to come to Australia’s defence, estimates combine ‘a References great deal’ and ‘a fair amount’. Appendix: Methodology Attitudes towards closer relations with Asia For relations with Asia gone too far, estimates combine ‘gone much too far’ and ‘gone too far’. For relations with Asia not gone far enough, estimates combine ‘not gone far enough’ and ‘not gone nearly far enough’.

Attitudes towards more trade relations with Asia Question asks whether ‘Australia’s trading future lies in Asia’. For agree, estimates combine ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’. For disagree, estimates combine ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’.

142 Defence and foreign affairs 143 References References

To cite data from the Australian Bean, C., Gow, D., McAllister, I. Election Study or the Australian (1999). Australian Election Study National Political Attitudes Survey 1998 [computer file], January 1999. please use the following references: Jones, R., Gow, D., McAllister, I. McAllister, I., Sheppard, J., Bean, (1996). Australian Election Study C., Gibson, R., Makkai, T. (2019). 1996 [computer file], June 1996. Australian Election Study 2019 [computer file], December 2019. Jones, R., McAllister, I., Denemark, D., Gow, D. (1993). Australian McAllister, I., Makkai, T., Bean, Election Study 1993 [computer file], C., Gibson, R., (2017). Australian August 1993. Election Study 2016 [computer file], February 2017. McAllister, I., Jones, R., Gow, D. (1990). Australian Election Study McAllister, I., Pietsch, J., Bean, 1990 [computer file], November C., Gibson, R. (2014). Australian 1990. Election Study 2013 [computer file], January 2014. McAllister, I., Mughan, A. (1987). Australian Election Study 1987 McAllister, I., Bean, C., Gibson, [computer file], November 1987. R., Pietsch, J., (2011). Australian Election Study 2010 [computer file], Aitkin, D. (2007). Australian National May 2011. Political Attitudes Survey, 1979 [computer file], May 2007. Bean, C., McAllister, I., Gow, D. (2008). Australian Election Study Aitkin, D., Kahan, M., Stokes, D. 2007 [computer file], May 2008. (2005). Australian National Political Attitudes Survey, 1969 [computer Bean, C., McAllister, I., Gibson, R., file], September 2005. Gow, D. (2005). Australian Election Study 2004 [computer file], March Aitkin, D., Kahan, M., Stokes, D. 2005. (2005). Australian National Political Attitudes Survey, 1967 [computer Bean, C., Gow, D., McAllister, I. file], September 2005. (2002). Australian Election Study 2001 [computer file], April 2002.

144 References 145 References The election campaign Voting and partisanship Election issues The economy Politics and political parties The left-right dimension The political leaders Democracy and institutions Trade unions, business and wealth Social issues Defence and foreign affairs References Appendix: Methodology

146 147 Appendix: Methodology Appendix: Methodology

The Australian Election Study (AES) 1987 Australian Election Study Overview, 1987– 2019 surveys are designed to collect The economy data following federal elections for Year Principal investigators Funder Study number academic research on Australian 1990 1987 Ian McAllister, Anthony Mughan University of NSW, ANU ASSDA 445 electoral behaviour and public The environment and opinion. The AES commenced environmentalism 1990 Ian McAllister, Roger Jones, David Gow University of NSW, ANU ASSDA 570 operation in 1987 and has fielded 1993 Roger Jones, Ian McAllister, David Denemark, David Gow ARC/ A79131812 ASSDA 763 surveys after every federal election 1993 1996 Roger Jones, David Gow, Ian McAllister ARC/ A79530652 ASSDA 943 since. Since 1998 the AES has Political culture 1998 Clive Bean, David Gow, Ian McAllister ARC/A79804144 ASSDA 1001 been a member of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) 1996 1999 David Gow, Clive Bean, Ian McAllister ARC/ A79937265 ASSDA 1018 group (see www.cses.org). Prior to National identity and citizenship 2001 Clive Bean, David Gow, Ian McAllister ARC/ A00106341 ASSDA 1048 the AES, three academic surveys of 2004 Clive Bean, Ian McAllister, Rachel Gibson, David Gow ARC/ DP0452898 ASSDA 1079 political behaviour were collected 1998 2007 Clive Bean, Ian McAllister, David Gow ACPSPRI/ACSR ASSDA 1120 by Don Aitkin in 1967, 1969 and Constitution, rights and minorities 1979, respectively, but they are not 2010 Ian McAllister, Clive Bean, Rachel Gibson, Juliet Pietsch ARC/DP1094626 ASSDA 1228 strictly speaking election surveys. 1999 2013 Ian McAllister, Juliet Pietsch, Clive Bean, Rachel Gibson ARC/ DP120103941 ADA 1259 Where comparable measures exist Constitutional referendum 2016 Ian McAllister, Juliet Pietsch, Clive Bean, Rachel Gibson, ARC/ DP160101501 ADA 01365 from these studies, they have been Toni Makkai incorporated in the trends in this 2001 report. Details on the earlier surveys Challenges to governance 2019 Ian McAllister, Jill Sheppard, Clive Bean, Rachel Gibson, ARC/ DP160101501 ADA 01446 are available on the Australian Toni Makkai National Political Attitudes Survey 2004 Dataverse. The decline of political parties

The AES routinely collects data 2007 among a nationally representative Democracy and representation sample of voters and among major party candidates standing 2010 for election. Both the voter and The dynamics of political choice. candidate instruments combine a common set of questions. The 2013 AES is mounted as a collaborative Volatility and electoral change exercise between several Australian universities. The 1987 2016 - 2019 and 1990 surveys were funded by Political engagement among a consortium of universities and the young the 2007 survey by ANU; all of the intervening and subsequent surveys have been funded by the australianelectionstudy.org Australian Research Council. Each of the surveys conducted to All of the data are publicly available date has had a central theme: from australianelectionstudy.org and from Dataverse (dataverse. ada.edu.au/dataverse/aes).

148 Appendix: Methodology 149 Appendix: Methodology Voters Candidates The Australian Candidates Study All the Australian Election Study 2013 an additional sample was (ACS) surveys are conducted in (AES) surveys are national, post- collected online in order to correct parallel with the surveys of voters. In election self-completion surveys. for an under-representation of Full technical details of the sampling 1987 all candidates for the House The 1987 – 2013 surveys were younger voters. In 2019 a ‘push- methodology and question of Representatives and Senate based on samples drawn randomly to-web’ methodology was used, wording is available in the survey were surveyed. Between 1990 and from the electoral register. The with a hard copy completion codebooks, available at www. 2016 the surveys were restricted 2016 survey used a split sample being available to respondents australianelectionstudy.org. to all major party candidates, method, with half of the sample who opted for it. The 1993 and plus identifiable Greens and other coming from the electoral register, post 2010 surveys are weighted environmental candidates. This and half from the Geo-Coded to reflect the characteristics of the restriction was designed to cut National Address File (G-NAF). The national electorate. The 2019 AES costs, since about half of the total 2019 survey was based solely on a also included a panel component, number of candidates were minor sample drawn from the G-NAF. The based on respondents who were party or independent candidates, 1993 AES oversampled in some interviewed in both 2016 and 2019. almost all of whom lost their of the smaller states and because deposits. In 1993 the criteria were of this the sample was weighted broadened to include non-major down to a national sample of party candidates whom it was 2,388 respondents. The overall anticipated would obtain more than response rates are listed below. In 10 per cent of the first preference 2001 and 2004 an online survey vote. In 2019 all candidates were was conducted in parallel with the contacted if they supplied a valid regular AES. In 2010, 2013, and email address on their nomination 2016 an online option was available papers. to the survey respondents, and in

Australian Election Study voter response rates, 1987 – 2019 Australian Candidate Survey response rates, 1987 – 2019

Election candidates Australian Candidate Study Valid Effective Year Total sample response response (%) House of Total Valid Effective 1987 3,061 1,825 62.8 Year Representatives Senate Total contacted response response (%) 1990 3,606 2,020 58.0 1987 613 255 868 868 612 70.5 1993 4,950 3,023 62.8 1990 782 223 1,005 631 410 65.0 1996 3,000 1,795 61.8 1993 943 266 1,209 593 415 70.0 1998 3,502 1,896 57.7 1996 908 255 1,163 672 427 63.5 2001 4,000 2,010 55.4 2001 1,039 285 1,324 840 477 56.8 2004 4,250 1,769 44.5 2004 1,091 330 1,421 998 535 53.6 2007 5,000 1,873 40.2 2007 1,054 367 1,421 952 470 49.9 2010 4,999 2,003 40.1 2010 849 349 1,198 543 247 45.5 2013 12,200 3,955 33.9 2013 1,188 529 1,717 556 192 34.5 2016 12,497 2,818 22.5 2016 994 631 1,625 591 182 30.8 2019 5,175 2,179 42.1 2019 1,056 458 1,514 1,278 482 37.7

The response rate is estimated as: valid responses / (total sample−moved or gone The 1987 and 2016 elections were double dissolution elections for the Senate. Other elections are half-Senate. away). The response rate is estimated as valid responses / total contacted.

150 Appendix: Methodology 151 Appendix: Methodology australianelectionstudy.org

> Access complete data files and documentation to conduct your own analysis

> Explore interactive charts to examine differences in political attitudes by age, gender, education level and vote

> Download Australian Election Study reports and articles

Design by Emily Downie, Ralph Kenke and Ron Woods

© The Australian National University, 2019 Copyright of material contained in this publication is held by The Australian National University. School of Politics and International Relations Haydon Allen Building #22 The Australian National University Canberra ACT 2601 Australia T +61 2 6125 5491 W politicsir.cass.anu.edu.au CRICOS #00120C