Giving voters what they want

We are well into the second week of an election campaign full of allegations of me-tooism and poll-driven policies. What policies do Australian voters really want and how much do the major parties meet their needs?

Luckily, we now have a tremendous resource to help answer these questions.

Professor Ian McAllister of the Australian National University (with the assistance of Juliet Clark of Deakin University) has just published Trends in Australian Political Opinion: Results from the Australian Election Study, 1987-2004. This handbook reports on the results of surveys conducted at the time of the past seven elections, together with earlier surveys.

In presenting the key themes to a seminar at the ANU last week, McAllister was able to link these trends to the present election campaign.

The question of Labor's opposition to capital punishment caused ructions when Labor's foreign affairs spokesman, Robert McClelland, was reprimanded by Kevin Rudd for allegedly insensitive remarks close to the anniversary of the Bali bombings. The issue surfaced again during the leaders debate on Sunday. Is Rudd being too timid?

Labor is actually being reasonably brave in opposing the death penalty at home and abroad because the electorate is still fairly conservative on this issue. In 2004 a majority (51 per cent) of Australians still wanted to reintroduce the death penalty, though back in 1993 that figure peaked at 68 per cent. The Coalition's intuition is almost certainly right that the number of Australians supporting the death penalty for foreign terrorists, like the Bali bombers, is much higher. Initially brave, Labor folded when tackled by the Government.

The other pre-campaign issue was Aboriginal rights, especially John Howard's promise to include Aboriginal rights in a new constitutional preamble. This followed the Government's intervention in the Northern Territory, a policy in which Labor acquiesced.

The Australian electorate again remains pretty conservative, though it is becoming more inclusive and tolerant. At the 2004 election 45 per cent thought government help for Aborigines had gone too far and 44 per cent thought the transfer of land rights to Aborigines had gone too far. If either the Government or the Opposition stick their neck out too far it can easily be bitten off by the electorate.

Once he announced the election, the Prime Minister quickly released his $34billion tax cut package. It was not until after a week of goading that Labor released its own plan. Labor's main difference was a $2billion-plus education scheme funded by delaying for 12 months tax cuts for those earning over $180,000.

Rudd called on those, including himself and the Prime Minister, who are in this bracket to make a sacrifice in the public interest.

At the leaders debate, journalist Paul Kelly criticised Rudd for not being bolder by devoting much more of the tax cuts to services.

This question goes to the heart of the individualist/collectivist divide, and, along with attitudes to trade unions, might decide the election. Those in the health, education and welfare sectors argue Australians are unselfish and actually put the public interest ahead of their private interests. But Australians might just flirt with this notion to make themselves feel good. The old saying is that elections are decided by the hip pocket nerve not altruism.

McAllister and his study colleagues confront this question directly. They ask voters whether they prefer less tax or more spending on social services.

When the question was first asked in 1987 during the Hawke-Keating period, 65 per cent favoured less tax and only 15 per cent favoured more spending on social services. By 2004, the gap had been eliminated. Thirty-seven per cent wanted more spending on social services and only 36 per cent wanted less tax.

The community is evenly balanced. Has Howard (and by implication Rudd) got it wrong by putting so many of his eggs in the tax cuts basket? Or is the electorate just kidding? The Greens are offering the greater public spending alternative, but Howard and Rudd might be reading the electorate better when considering what voters do in the privacy of the ballot box.

What about the Government's attack on Labor and the trade unions? Shouldn't Labor in turn just attack the links between the Coalition and the top end of town? Labor chose instead to emphasise the contribution of unions to the community and the good things that Hawke and Keating, themselves union officials, did while leading the country.

The Government's attack on Labor-union links (alleging that 70 per cent of the Labor front bench is made up of former union officials) has several elements that must be disentangled for its potential impact to be judged. Some have no sting, but others might.

The Government tries to scare the electorate with allegations of union power and control. McAllister demonstrates that this won't wash. The electorate, in 2004, actually feared the excessive power of big business (71 per cent) much more than the excessive power of trade unions (41 per cent), though 41 per cent is still no small matter.

Howard also claims explicitly the union connection is out of whack, and unrepresentative, because only 15 per cent of the private-sector workforce is unionised. This is harder for Labor to rebut, other than by the truth that Labor is, after all, a trade union-based party.

Finally, the Government implies the link makes Labor old-fashioned because it reflects a time years ago when 50 per cent of the workforce was unionised.

This implication, if convincing, might cut across Labor's claim to a fresh, new approach.

Matching election rhetoric with underlying public opinion is not easy. It provides a warning that election campaigning is a mix of explicit, implicit and subconscious targeting of one's opponent. You have to read between the lines.