Print
this article |
Email
this article
No
Longer "Relaxed and Comfortable", Voters'
Express Views On Federal Budget
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 Springboard Australia, in conjunction with
e-journal, Online Opinion.
For
the second year in a row, unique research of voters’
views has provided a new insight into Australia’s
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.
Springboard
Australia’s Founding Director Tim Grau analyses
the research and its implications.
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.”
“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 wok can get a job.”
Reflected
typical comments made by swinging or undecided voters.
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 (e.g.
telecommunications/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
not uncommon sentiments.
Notably
again this year, voters were less comfortable about
the direction of 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 wealth.”
“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 education, training
and health were dominant.
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
its 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 vs 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 5 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 4 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 groups,
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 they 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 Car, Peter Beattie and John Howard have
most often been characterised as these breed of “worker”
dogs.
In
our most recent research a selection 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 characterized 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: Springboard Australia conducted the focus
group research in conjunction with e-journal On Line
Opinion through a private internet chat room on the
evenings 19 and 24 May, 2005. The script was constant
between the groups. Some additional questions were
asked to probe responses further were necessary and
appropriate.
Subjects
were randomly selected from the database of more than
700 people who have responded previously to our internet
surveys. Participants were from Tasmania, Queensland,
New South Wales and Victoria.
|
