We live in strange times. Australian politics is particularly hard to read at the moment. This was demonstrated in the recent Senate election in Western Australia when both the Palmer United Party and the Greens did well and there was a swing against both the government and opposition parties.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But the really bemusing result has come in the latest Herald/Nielsen poll which reports on an April 10-12 survey. This poll has delivered a 3 per cent two-party preferred swing over the past month to Labor, leaving it ahead once again on 52:48 per cent.
This has been caused primarily by a rise in the Greens primary vote from 12 per cent to 17 per cent and a fall in Coalition support from 44 per cent to 40 per cent. Labor’s primary vote is steady at 34 per cent, barely higher than its 33 per cent support in the election in September. PUP scored 4 per cent and others 5per cent, meaning that a quarter of all voters do not support the major parties.
The survey result for the Greens confirms the party's success in re-electing Senator Scott Ludlam. But the other results are all over the place, especially for Labor and PUP. Labor polled more than 10 per cent worse in WA than in the survey, while PUP, which hugely outspent the other parties, did much better than its nationwide survey result.
Many see the government and the opposition as Tweedledum and Tweedledee on issues like climate change and asylum seekers, but surely that was already the case in September when the Greens did poorly.
There are several reasons which might explain the government’s poor performance, including issues polled by Nielsen, like the free speech and knights-and-dames debates. The government emerges badly. The reasonsalso include perceptions of big cuts coming in a tough budget next month.
But in a two-horse race Labor has hardly done enough to merit a 3 per cent two-party preferredswing. It is still stained by corruption in NSW and nationally. The union royal commission hangs over its head. So dothe carbon and mining taxes. It's leader Bill Shorten receives little credit.
In general we have an unconvincing assortment of leaders at the moment and this contributes mightily to the strangeness of the political times. The five in question are Tony Abbott, Warren Truss, Bill Shorten, Christine Milne and Clive Palmer. Together they suffer a decidedly mixed reception from the community. Abbott and Palmer are clearly divisive while Truss, Shorten and Milne are seen as ineffective or invisible.
Last election the results from the Australian Election Study revealed a set of leaders who were rated remarkably poorly compared to earlier elections (see Trends in Australian Public Opinion: Results from the Australian Election Study 1987-2013, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University).
On a scale of 1-10, voters ranked each political leader well below five. The major party leaders, Kevin Rudd and Abbott, were ranked 4.07 and 4.29 respectively. The minor party leaders, Milne and Truss, were ranked 3.81 and 4.34 respectively. The ratings are not independent of the pattern of the vote but they are a guide. Rudd’s ratings had fallen since 2010 and especially since 2007 when he was rated 6.31.
This was the highest rating for any leader since the series began in 1987, beating Bob Hawke’s 6.22 in that year. John Howard was rated above five for each election from 1996-2007. Kim Beazley once rated above six and even Mark Latham was 5.04 in 2004.
Rudd has been replaced by Shorten and Palmer must be added to the national leadership list. Shorten and Palmer have very different styles but neither has yet lifted the performance and/or popularity of leaders in this country.
Abbott has never been especially popular and his party’s success at the last election hasn’t changed anything. The reasons given for this lack of popularity are various: old-fashioned, conservative, ideological warrior, too religious, sexist and so on. He remains unpopular with 50 per cent of the Australian electorate and supported by only 43 per cent. He is only a hair’s breadth above Shorten as preferred prime minister at a time when Shorten is widely mocked and derided in the media.
Truss is uninspiring but at least he is not divisive. Despite the fact that Nationals leader suffers from lack of exposure to the metropolitan media, he is a bit of a surprise packet. Perhaps it shows that the electorate values steadiness above flashiness. Nevertheless in the election studyTruss still ranks well below recent Nationals leaders such as Mark Vaile and John Anderson.
Shorten, too, comes out better in the polls than his representation in the media. While 16 per cent of Australians are undecided,a majority of the remainder reckon he is doing a reasonable job. When compared to Abbott, he holds his own. Nevertheless, Labor members preferred Anthony Albanese in the leadership ballot by a comfortable margin and Shorten is still struggling to learn the job of Opposition Leader. Critics say that he will only survive as leader because his party’s new rules make it too hard to sack him.
Milne has succeeded Bob Brown but the election study shows that she is decidedly less popular than he was. She is rarely given credit for Greens successes and there are frequent predictions that her party will look around for a replacement once likely candidates have gained more experience. Nevertheless she has been consistent and steadfast, even if not an effective communicator.
Palmer is hard to categorise but he can’t be described as dull. He is still a two-sided work in progress. Some voters warm to an engaging, eccentric clown but more fear an arrogant, unpredictable billionaire who has bought his balance of power. Whatever your view, his arrival hasn’t solved Australia’s serious leadership deficit.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National Universityy
