In the Newspoll on WorkChoices, more people think that it will be bad for the economy than think it will have bad effects on them personally. Which opinion is more important? In arguing the case for the electoral significance of this polling, Fred Argy and Robert Corr argue that (in Fred’s words):
people are not guided only or even principally by self-interest when they vote
It’s certainly possible to find evidence in issue polling that people are guided by the concerns of others. I made just such an argument in my analysis of pre-Workchoices industrial relations polling. But showing that such concerns have an influence on voting is much more difficult.
One problem is that no election issue changes a large percentage of votes. This is because most people vote according to long-held party loyalties. More than 80% of Australians give pollsters a party ID; they will always or usually vote for ‘their’ party. Party identification no doubt incorporates some concern beyond the voters’ own interests; conservative voters tend to be quite patriotic and left-wing voters like to tell us (in their blend of altruism and narcissism) about their ‘social conscience’. But most of this is factored into the vote long before anyone knows what the election issues will be, and won’t be changed by anything that happens between one election and the next.
Another problem is that even for those who have no or weak party ID, elections force them to bundle all their political concerns into two votes (except in unicameral Queensland). They may be concerned about others, but which others? So many worthy causes, so few votes! The two general Newspoll questions on WorkChoices, about the economy and jobs, both have more people saying that it will be bad than good. But if someone is concerned about the jobs and economic welfare of their fellow Australians, then clearly industrial relations is just one component of a much bigger policy package. The last ACNielsen poll on which party is better to handle the economy, in August last year, had the Coalition ahead 54% to 33%. Unless the economy dips significantly, it is hard to see how Labor can move ahead on this. Track records will count for more than promises.
In their statistical analysis of the 2004 Australian Election Survey, published in Mortgage Nation: The 2004 Australian Election, Clive Bean and Ian McAllister could find very few factors that showed statistically as influencing the vote – all of them small. Favouring the Coalition were leadership (1.8%), terrorism (1%), and taxation (0.6%). Favouring Labor was health and Medicare (0.4%). So on the variables they had in the survey, the Coalition had a net issue advantage of 3%. Interestingly, they could not find evidence that interest rates were significant – the Coalition was regarded as better than Labor on this issue, but it did not appear to swing votes.
Most elections are won and lost by small margins, so issues do matter. And over time combinations of issues may help form long-term political affiliations. I’ve never ruled out WorkChoices as having an effect on the federal election. But it is interesting that all the issues that seemed to change votes in 2004 affect – or could affect, because of terrorism’s random nature – a very large percentage of the population. For all the hyperbole, WorkChoices will have little noticeable effect on most Australians. Despite the worst-case scenarios being presented by Labor and the unions, they have persuaded only one-third of workers that it will affect them negatively.
Andrew Norton 
Andrew, thanks for this detailed response. I will have to read it again carefully, but your conclusion jumped out at me:
“But it is interesting that all the issues that seemed to change votes in 2004 affect – or could affect, because of terrorism
LikeLike
According to paragraph 3 of the Steve Lewis article, 33% of people think WorkChoices will be ‘personally detrimental’.
But you say 18%.
Whats the reason for the discrepancy?
LikeLike
True, terrorism does not affect many people. I guess it is its catastrophic nature that captures the imagination. The worst that can happen under WorkChoices is much less terrifying.
LikeLike
Leopold – I’m not sure; I was using my post from yesterday, for which I was working from the Newspoll tables, not the article. I could have made a transcription error (or only recorded the ‘very bad’ figure), so I have taken down the mention of 18% pending checking tomorrow. I don’t have the print version of yesterday’s paper with me. It’s not critical to the post, though it was the context of Fred’s comment.
LikeLike
Leopold – Thanks for pointing out that error – the 18% was the ‘lot worse off’ figure, with 33% overall saying they would be worse off. 14% say they will be better off, and 48% say ‘neither’. This question was asked of workers only.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Could I suggest another option?
For me personally, it’s a vote for the least of the various evils. In my experience, over the last 10 years or so, the union movement has not been anything but a pain in the butt (from a professional perspective), so voting for the Labor party (given that they are essentially the union movements political arm) is not an option. Given that a government of either the Greens, Democrats or independants (or any combination thereof) should be avoided at all costs, that really only leaves the Coalition.
While I think they’ve had their time, there really isn’t another choice.
LikeLike
I notice that the polling tends to be fairly high-level. See the list of marginal seats in this document: what percentages are concerned about WorkChoices in those seats to the extent where it will change their votes?
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of WorkChoices, there are broadly two types of employment arrangement: the generic and the particular. People who are valued by their employer will be able to negotiate an arrangement specific to them with additional benefits not available to others, while those with few specialised skills to offer and/or an employer which only requires generic attributes will be covered by generic attributes.
Over the past twenty years there has been a recognition that the generic model provided by the award system was inadequate. The need for a balance came with the “two-tiered” system of the mid-late 1980s, and various models have been attempted since to balance the generic and the particular. Gillard is surely playing to Labor’s base by signalling that generic conditions, and the perception of job security that came with it, can be revived by a future Labor government (surely she can’t be so silly as to believe it).
WorkChoices is too weak on the generic and too complex in the particular. We live in an age of “mass customisation” in producing goods and services, yet this seems impossible for (or beyond the imaginative capacities of) those who shape workplace regulations.
LikeLike
There are a lot of issues, some for and some against the IR laws and work choice agreements.
Firstly work choice agreements benefit a minority of workers, not the majority.
The current IR laws will only create more divisions between the haves and have nots.
We keep being told that since the new IR laws came into affect there has been a vast improvement in unemployment statistics. Could this be due to lower wages for most, enabling businesses to hire more employees.
Single parents are being forced to return to work.
Bringing in workers from overseas also creates competition forcing Australian workers to lose basic benefits if they dont want to lose their job to a foriegn workers prepared to work longer hours for less money.
Australia, although a large Country does not have the water to sustain bringing more people into the country.
Imports by far exceed our exports.
Australias foriegn debts are increasing at an alarming rate.
I believe John Howard knew what he was doing when he was voted in, giving total power in both the upper and lower houses, this enabled his government to change or create laws to suit Globul corporate business.
Firstly he went about disarming the people
Introduced Anti terrorist laws, giving unprecedented powers to ASIO, Federal and State Police forces. If I recall correctly Adolph Hitler did the same. Perhaps John Howard has studdied and adopted policies from mein kampth.
Introduced his IR laws, which when all said and done hurts the mojority of workers.
I could go on further but feel it is pointless as the vast mojority of the people will never hear or understand it.
As for voting on elections, people usually follow one of the main parties and in most cases will vote the same way regardless if they are hurt in the long run. I am in the catorgree of being a swinging voter. On deciding my vote I take into account a number of things, issues, whats best for Australia and our people, then whats best for me.
Governments are voted into power by swinging voters. Unless there are some drastic changers for the better the liberal coalition party will not be getting my vote at the upcoming Federal elections later this year
LikeLike
Well said gypsy. Perhaps not entirely political correct, but I can see and understand where you are coming from.
Bringing workers from overseas are to be skilled people to boost areas where those skills are lacking, it is not for unskilled people to take aussie workers jobs or basic rights.
Water is of the greatest concern and the biggest crisis for all australians.
Federal and State governments by their actions, or should I say lack of action, betray the voters and citizens of australia.
Until the the water storages throughout the country are returned to healthy levels, Immigration should be ceased immediately.
LikeLike
Australia’s water supplies are vast – you just need to put your people in the subtropical north.
LikeLike
fgmkhqrb yvhqdou tqysguahe ctasexmq dkacqig vpnitsym kedx
LikeLike