Voters' views on the federal Budget: no longer 'relaxed and comfortable'

Far from "relaxed and comfortable" Australians feel angst about the future and want more from their political leaders according to the latest online research conducted by On Line Opinion in conjunction with Springboard Australia.

For the second year in a row, unique research of voters' views has provided a new insight into Australians’ attitudes towards the recent federal Budget and their perceptions of the federal government, opposition and political leaders.

The research, conducted immediately after the recent federal Budget, was designed to find out what voters really think about issues rather than relying on simple quantitative polls that do not explain why people have certain views or why they plan to vote a particular way.

Is Australia heading in the right direction?

When voters were asked if Australia was heading in the right direction a similar mood to that detected last year persisted with one important change.

On the economic front, voters believe the country is heading in the right direction. Australia was seen to have "strong economic growth, relatively low inflation and unemployment and almost no government debt". Typical comments made by swinging or undecided voters were:

• "The economy is strong with repeated surpluses being the envy of other OECD countries."
• "The economy is strong the nation is secure most people willing to work can get a job."

A new finding this year, and in an ominous note for the Labor Opposition, swinging voters who identified themselves as traditionally Labor voters were comfortable about the state and direction of the economy.

A swinging Victorian Labor voter summed up this view by declaring:

• "Essentially we are in relatively prosperous time and it looks like it is going to continue."

Critically, many voters did harbour some concerns about the direction of the country on an economic front.

Their concerns were about the future and displayed a sophisticated view of the state of the nation and the problems they perceive it faces. Invariably these concerns related to the need for further spending on infrastructure, the future and tax reform.

• "We need investment in infrastructure, both hard (for example telecommunications and roads) and soft (skills, education and health)."
• "We need to get freight off the roads and onto rebuilt rail lines."
• "… woeful failure to address infrastructure …"
• "… there was not total change to our present taxation system nor infrastructure allowances for building for future water needs."

A common view was that there is a "failure to address skills shortages and infrastructure development".

A number of voters linked their concerns about the lack of infrastructure investment directly with tax reform, arguing that rather than tax cuts the funds should have been spent on infrastructure.

Other voters who had concerns about tax reform argued for additional tax cuts.

• "Should have cut the personal tax rates closer to company tax rate. No tax reforms in the budget, just handouts."
• "Personally, I am happy with the tax cuts however there needs to be further reform to taxation."
• "Failure to tackle tax reform. Tax cuts for most workers are illusory, especially if interest rates are forced to rise."
• "The tax cuts did not give the ordinary Australian much of a tax break."

And "tax reform not done properly" was a not uncommon sentiment, particularly with Coalition voters.

Notably again this year, voters were less comfortable about the direction of the country when it came to social and cultural issues. In fact, many thought the country was headed in the wrong direction because of these issues.

In general terms, inequality was a common theme.

• "This current - Federal Government isn't governing for all. The gap between the rich and poor is widening."
• "The poor and disadvantaged are being imposed upon by the appeal to the greed of the wealthy."
• "Targeting people on disability pensions and single parents to be cut" was also a concern of many swinging voters unhappy with the direction of the country.
• "Some directions are OK but the focus on materialism to the exclusion of all else is really starting to worry me."

Values, truth in government and community divisiveness were also strongly reoccurring themes from many swinging voters unhappy with the direction of the country.

• "Australia has become a mean country."
• "We are becoming less accepting and more fearful."
• "Our PM lies and thinks it doesn't matter. We are becoming a compassionless society under his leadership."
• "Deception by politicians is setting a bad example to all Australians."
• "Politicians are not accountable for the lies they make at election time."
• "Australia is going backwards in many ways, treatment of Aboriginals people, refugees, detainees, human rights, women, multicultural issues. We have lost our identity and focus and we are splintered as a nation"

Australia's foreign policy position again registered as an issue for some voters, but the views were not as prominent as last year.

• "Australia is drawing closer to the American way of life, loosing its unique qualities in favour of junk culture and values."
• "Too closely aligned with the US. Howard is a lap dog of Bush. We should be friendly to all countries without being subservient."

The Budget - General

While in general terms, voters were approving of the Budget when asked to expand on views on the Budget they were quick to identify concerns they had about its direction, focus, initiatives or lack of them.

• "A useful budget."
• "Budget in general is heading in the right direction - states should have their responsibilities clearly defined."
• "A lot of missed opportunities in my opinion, with the surplus they should have invested more skills, infrastructure and education."
• "I was disappointed the Budget contained no new initiatives on water and nothing for export infrastructure."
• "Pretty much lost opportunity to attack the real problems with the tax and welfare system, to address infrastructure and environmental issues."
• "Pandering too much to high income earners (and my household is one of them), no focus on education and research except the apprenticeship scheme is a real mistake; do something about the environment."
• "Giving to the rich and taking from the poor. AGAIN!"
• "The Budget reflects a mean-minded, insensitive and disrespectful government that is out of touch with the small people, the vulnerable people."

Again, when voters were asked to identify what they would change in the Budget if they could, infrastructure and investment in such areas of eduction, training and health dominated.

The Budget - Tax Cuts

As noted earlier, voters welcomed the tax cuts, however their enthusiasm for them was tempered by concerns that they were targeted too much at the "rich", they were at the expense of low income earners, single parents and the disabled and the funds should have been spent on infrastructure and other investments for the future.

• "If it's fair to the lower and middle income earners, why not?"
• "While I fully support tax cuts at the high end there needs to be a good look at the interactions of taxes and welfare for the low end earners."
• "Low income earners are finding it difficult to get by in this economy and there is no incentives for the working poor."
• "I believe the tax cut are a disgrace to the nation with major problems with skills, infrastructure, health and education ... we need major reform and investment in these areas. It's time the government took some risks for the future."

The Budget - Future Fund and Superannuation Surcharge Changes

The Future Fund was generally welcomed by voters, but this appeared to be more because of what it was called rather than any real understanding of what it was.

• "Sounds promising."
• "Need to hear more details."
• "I don't understand enough of the problem they are trying to solve."
• "What are the unfunded liabilities?"

Those who appeared to understand its purpose where supportive, recognised its purpose, but expressed some reservations or concerns.

• "… depends on who controls the Future Fund."
• "… if it's in the bank who gets the interest?"
• "Very uneasy because I wonder how much will just go into the investment advisers coffers."

Voters overwhelmingly supported the abolition of the superannuation surcharge.

• "It was an awful tax."
• "I think it's a good thing - never a fair tax."

Kim Beazley's Budget Response

Kim Beazley's overall Budget reply message appears to have been lost in his opposition to the tax cuts.

Initially, voters were at best dismissive or cynical of Beazley's promise to oppose the tax cuts. However when discussion turned to his promised tax cut and his proposed "Building Australia Fund" voters were very supportive of the plans.

On the plan to oppose the Government's tax cuts:

• "Dear Old Kimmie is doing his usual stunt - God Bless Him!!"
• "… sure it’s not just delaying the inevitable?"
• "Beazley is making a mistake here."
• "I don't think it means much, he and the rest of Oz knows the government gets majority in July."

Labor voters, however, where more supportive of Beazley's stance:

• "He can't win this, but at least he has presented an alternative rather than just criticising the government."
• "Probably good positioning in a political sense - if people in the middle eventually realise they got very little form the budget."
• "It's the best stance Beazley has ever made, the workers will remember the principal (sic) at the next election."

Beazley's own proposed tax cuts received a warmer reception among voters:

• "I agree with Beazley's tax structure."
• "If Beazley can work this out why didn't Costello?"
• "Probably sensible."
• "If we have to have tax cuts Beazley's are preferable."
• "Hope he can do it - but need to know the ALP's plans for the economy."

Similarly, voters were initially attracted to Beazley's "Building Australia Fund" but wanted to know more details.

John Howard v Peter Costello

Voters were contemptuous of the debate surrounding Peter Costello's ambition to lead the Liberal Party and whether or not John Howard should stand down before the next election.

They views were strongly expressed and ranged from dismissively uninterested to outright disgust.

• "Boring and trivial. Who cares?"
• "It is a distraction and I really don't care."
• "Pathetic couple of school boys."
• "John and Peter is like watching two five-year-olds argue over who's Daddy is better!"
• "I think they both need to grow up and run the country and leave the leadership issue to the party to decide."
• "The leader is chosen by vote, it is not a decision between Howard and Costello."
• "They are both detestable. Who cares?"

Unfortunately for the would-be Prime Minister much of the vitriol was directed towards Costello. Voters thought he should "put up or shut up" and or were very critical of his view that he deserved the leadership.

• "Pete should sit down and shut up."
• "Peter needs to grow up!"
• "Costello should go for it, or walk away with his tail between his legs."
• "I do not like Peter Costello and don't understand why he thinks he has the right to be the leader of the Liberal Party."
• "Waste of time. I would not vote for Peter Costello."
• "I will not vote for Costello, don't trust him."
• "Much as I dislike Howard and his policies, I'd rather have him in charge of the country than Captain Smirk. I regard Costello as competent and intelligent but I find his world view as illustrated by his manner and actions repulsive."
• "Peter Costello acts as if he had some divine right to become the next Liberal Leader - there are others who may be better than him. He should stop acting petulantly and wait the party's decision."
• "Costello won't make a good leader, he is too smug. Howard is a real statesman and done a good job as leader."
• "What makes Peter Costello think he has the right to 'inherit' the leadership?"
• "I don't think that Costello has an unchallenged right to the Prime Minister's job."
• "Howard won four and is a winner, why change now. Costello should shut up and get on with the job he's got."
• "Forget the personalities - Mr Howard has the record - and he is still steaming ahead - good on him!"
• "Can't stand Costello, Howard lesser of two idiots."

Some voters did prefer a change of leadership to Costello:

• "Time for Howard to go and step aside and give the challenger a go."
• "The sooner Howard goes the better."
• "Totally agree: Costello is a whole lot more trustworthy than little Johnnie ... who has lied to us so many, many times."
• "(If) he (Howard) is going to resign then yes, it should be well before the next election, so we can decide on Costello with some knowledge."

Doggy in the Window?

For a number of years, at the end of each focus group, to gain an insight in to how they characterise political leaders in simple descriptive terms we often ask the question: "If you had to describe (NAME) as a breed of dog, what breed would that be?"

We have used this technique in the research for the 2003 NSW State Election, the Queensland 2004 State election and the last Federal election. We asked the question again this year given the recent change of Labor leadership and speculation over a Howard-Costello challenge. Interestingly, the question always provokes a quick response from participants and very often very similar answers regardless of party affiliation.

Our research has consistently found that strong and successful political leaders are characterised by voters as "worker" dogs. These dogs are the type a person would have for protection or to do work around the home or property. Generally, they are small, agile and aggressive.

Previous research has found Bob Carr, Peter Beattie and John Howard have most often been characterised as these breeds of "worker" dogs. In our most recent research a selection of voter's responses included the following, when asked to describe the breed of dog John Howard was:

• "Bulldog" (Liberal Voter)
• "Fox Terrier" (Swinging Voter)
• "Fox Terrier" (ALP Voters)
• "Mongrel" (ALP voter)
• "A fantastic Jack Russell - does not let go - intelligent and keeps trying" (Liberal Voter)
• "Australian cattle dog ... Because he's so great at working the sheep" (Green Voter)
• "Dog in the manger" (ALP Voter)

By contrast, our research has found that voters often describe some leaders as "likeable" dogs. These are the kind of dogs a person would like to play with in the backyard but you would not expect to them to protect you or be great worker dogs. They are usually bigger, bounding and playful dogs.

Interestingly, voters often describe Opposition Leaders in these terms. Our research found this was how voters characterised John Brogden in the 2003 NSW State election.

Our research this year found many voters described Peter Costello in these terms:

• "Cocker spaniel" (Liberal Voter)
• "Spaniel/Labrador cross" (ALP Voter)
• "A Labrador" (Swinging Voter)
• "Poodle" (ALP Voter)
• "One of those big sad looking ones with big ears" (Liberal Voter)
• "Lap dog" (ALP Voter)
• "A boxer" (Liberal Voter)
• "A Basset Hound" (Liberal Voter)

Rarely but occasionally, an exception is expressed with one ALP voter this time describing Peter Costello as a "greyhound".

When it came to Kim Beazley voters tended to be consistent in their descriptions. Again, they tended to choose dogs that fit into the "likeable" category. However, for Beazley the type of breed voters chose also appeared to reflect even slower, bigger cuddly type of dogs.

• "Great Dane - big but gentle" (ALP Voter)
• "A big shaggy dog" (Swinging Voter)
• "Yeah a Great Dane - he's kind but he can bite and he is loud" (ALP Voter)
• "Yes, a big slow dog" (Liberal Voter)
• "St Bernard" (ALP Voter)
• "Definitely St Bernard" (Green Voter)
• "Big old bulldog" (ALP Voter)
• "St Bernard" (Liberal Voter)
• "Overweight German Shepard" (ALP Voter)

Research Methodology

On Line Opinion conducted the focus group research in conjunction with Springboard Australia through a private internet chat room on the evenings May 19 and 24, 2005. The script was constant between the groups. Some additional questions were asked to probe responses further were necessary and appropriate.

Subjects were selected from a group of 575 voters who had filled in an Internet survey on the Budget and the Liberal Party leadership. Participants were from Tasmania, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.