Oz Politics Blog

Today’s Sunday Telegraph reported a Galaxy poll conducted on 8-9 July about the Howard Government’s proposed industrial relations changes. Since the detailed poll results do not appear to be available on the Internet, I will recap them here.

1. Would you be in favour or against strike or other industrial action to prevent new industrial relations laws? Total % White Collar % Blue Collar % In favour 44 41 47 Against 44 49 38 Uncommitted 12 10 15

2. Which one, John Howard or Kim Beazley, would you prefer as Prime Minister? Total % Male % Female % John Howard 49 43 56 Kim Beazley 29 33 24 Uncommitted 22 24 20

3. Has the government done enough to explain the new industrial relations laws? Total % Howard Supporters % Beazley Supporters % Yes/done enough 11 16 7 No/not enough 78 71 90 Uncommitted 11 13 3

4. Are you worried that employers may use the new laws to force workers into accepting lower pay and worse conditions? Total % White Collar % Blue Collar % Yes/worried 63 57 71 No/not worried 26 33 18 Uncommitted 11 11 11

5. Do you agree or disagree that if new laws are introduced businesses will benefit and this will lead to more jobs? Total % Howard Supporters % Beazley Supporters % Agree 33 44 19 Disagree 47 36 67 Uncommitted 20 20 14

6. Do you the union campaign has been appropriate or do you think the unions have created undue fear in the community? Total % Howard Supporters % Beazley Supporters % Appropriate 43 20 77 Created undue fear 41 64 11 Uncommitted 16 16 12

What does it all mean

With a sample size of 500, a little caution is warranted. When it comes to making an inference about the Australian population, this sample has a 95 per cent confidence interval of a touch over plus or minus four percentage points for each question. However, inferences about the Australian population may not be possible. The Sunday Telegraph does not discuss the sampling frame. We do not know whether the sample was selected randomly. We do not know whether it only contains people from Sydney, urban areas more generally, or whether it is a truly random cross section of all Australians. Nonetheless, if we suspend our doubts on these matters for a moment, there are some interesting factoids here.

Table 1 above is an interesting question. It may go to the heart of the government’s political strategy. The government knows that if it can provoke the union into an over-reaction on any issue it has a better chance of capturing the moderate middle ground. The irony with these provocations is that the union members do not realise they are being used — remember the 20,000 union demonstrators at parliament house in August 1996 who trashed the front doors and bookshop, or the stevedores and the Patrick’s dispute. I don’t think the government would be too worried about demonstrations and pre-emptive industrial action.

It is clear from table 2 above that Howard is the preferred Prime Minister for 49 per cent of people compared to Beazley’s 29 per cent. This is almost identical to the latest Newspoll result (although ACNielsen has Beazley’s support 10 points higher, and the uncommitted 10 points lower). The gender differences reported here are interesting.

Table 3 is self evident. The government has done little to sell its message. Perhaps the More Jobs, Higher Wages, A Stronger Economy adverts in today’s papers are a step in the right direction on this front. It would be interesting to see this poll question repeated in 6 months time.

Table 4 goes to the central fear with the new arrangements — will my employer be able to reduce my wages or conditions? While a large proportion of people expressed some worry, more analysis is needed here to assess the depth of the worry. If the worry is deep seated, the government may have a problem. However, if it turns out to be the usual run-of-the uncertainty associated with any change process, then industrial relations reform could end up being another GST.

The question in table 5 is difficult to interpret. It is a two-part question and it is difficult to assess whether the majority of respondents think the new laws will not benefit business or whether they will not lead to more jobs. The response may simply reflect prejudices about big business. Notwithstanding this, the construct should have been put as two questions.

Question 6 is the flip side of question 1. The challenge for the unions will be to keep on the “appropriate” side of the ledger. To be so close to “inappropriate” at this early stage in its campaign is very risky. As I noted above, the government would be hoping the unions over-reach in their opposition to the new industrial relations laws, and these data suggest the unions do not have far to go.

All-in-all, a very interesting set of questions.