Election plus three weeks

A look at how the religious vote might have helped Scott Morrison to victory, plus some analysis of turnout and the rate of informal voting.

I had a paywalled Crikey article on Friday on the religion factor in the election result, drawing on results of the Australian National University’s Australian Election Study survey. Among other things, it had this to say:

The results from the 2016 survey provide some support for the notion, popular on the right of the Liberal Party, that Malcolm Turnbull brought the government to the brink of defeat by losing religious voters, who appear to have flocked back to the party under Morrison. Notably, the fact that non-religious voters trusted Turnbull a lot more than they did Abbott did not translate into extra votes for the Coalition, whereas a two-party swing to Labor of 7% was recorded among the religiously observant.

The charts below expand upon the survey data featured in the article, showing how Labor’s two-party preferred has compared over the years between those who attend religious services several times a year or more (“often”), those who do so less frequently (“sometimes”), and those who don’t do it at all (“never”).

Some other post-election observations:

Rosie Lewis of The Australian reports the looming Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the election will examine the three-week pre-polling period and the extent of Clive Palmer’s campaign spending. There is not, it would seem, any appetite to explore the debilitating phenomenon of fake news proliferating on social media, for which Australia arguably experienced a watershed moment during the campaign through claims Labor had a policy to introduce a “death tax”. This is explored in depth today in a report in The Guardian and an accompanying opinion piece by Lenore Taylor. That said, not all of the mendacity about death taxes was subterranean, as demonstrated by this official Liberal Party advertisement.

• As best as I can tell, all votes for the House of Representatives have been counted now. There was a fall in the official turnout rate (UPDATE: No, actually — it’s since risen to 91.9%, up from 91.0% in 2016), which, together with the fact that not all votes had been counted at the time, gave rise to a regrettable article in the Age-Herald last week. However, as Ben Raue at the Tally Room explores in depth, the turnout rate reflects the greater coverage of the electoral roll owing to the Australian Electoral Commission’s direct enrolment procedures. This appears to have succeeded to some extent in increasing the effective participation rate, namely votes cast as a proportion of the eligible population rather than those actually enrolled, which by Raue’s reckoning tracked up from 80.0% in 2010 to 83.2% – an enviable result by international standards. However, it has also means a larger share of the non-voting population is now on the roll rather than off it, and hence required to bluff their way out of a fine for not voting.

• The rate of informal voting increased from 5.0% to 5.5%, but those seeking to tie this to an outbreak of apathy are probably thinking too hard. Antony Green notes the shift was peculiar to New South Wales, and puts this down to the proximity of a state election there, maximising confusion arising from its system of optional preferential voting. The real outlier in informal voting rates of recent times was the low level recorded in 2007, which among other things causes me to wonder if there might be an inverse relationship between the informal voting rate and the level of enthusiasm for Labor.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,359 comments on “Election plus three weeks”

Comments Page 6 of 28
1 5 6 7 28
  1. Considering the government is not short of revenue, those wanting new taxes on property and inheritances because you don’t like someone getting a benefit shows the lessons of the recent election are not being learnt. Start touching the family home and you risk handing a thumping landslide win to whoever is opposed to it because two thirds of Australians own or are paying off a mortgage. If you really want to tap wealth then extend the GST to all goods and services and argue for a new tax bracket at say $500k a year then remove the tax free status of the charity sector because they benefit greatly from the rich making taxable donations.

  2. A few days ago the Canberra times introduced a paywall under its new owners. I discovered there is a monthly limit of five articles before the door for freebies slams shut. Unlike the SMH and Age (but like Murdoch and AFR), one cannot use Outline to circumvent the paywall.

    The Canberra times has been going downhill in coverage and readership for some years. Apparently like many Canberrans, I haven’t bought a paper version for a long time. Perhaps the paywall will be the last straw and give the new owners an excuse to discontinue publication.

    Soon Murdoch will launch a paywalled online Canberra title but it will apparently be a subset of the DT, like a range of his suburban papers. No chance of me subscribing for this one either.

  3. Tres amusing watching people who have no freaking idea, trying to pontificate about the NSW Labor leadership contest.

  4. “I would argue the Greens would need a new leader and the party shift towards a Democratic Socialist stance on economics, emulating the British Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn or the Democratic Socialists of America who Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a part of.”

    Tristo, the Greens are actually already there but it doesn’t stop them being stuck in the electoral ghetto @ roughly 10% of the vote and that vote coming from essentially two places:
    – left wing middle class “progressive” types in inner Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra as well as the Far North Coast of NSW.
    – the so called “Doctor Wives” who live on the North Shore or Inner Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne who vote for the Greens because of the progressive causes but more as a protest against the Liberal Party and because they can’t bring themselves to vote Labor because of the trade unions etc.

    Both of the core support areas are soft – one because Labor can put up left candidates who can attract the non hard Socialist Green vote – think Albo, Tanya Plibersek or Ged Kearney (an inspired choice for Cooper). The other is soft because it is essentially a protest vote – it is a vote that only wants to go the least worse alternative.

    Labor don’t have to take the Greens too seriously as they are just essentially a vote bank when there is not optional preferential voting. Optional preferential voting would be in the Greens interests as Labor would have to fight and bargain for the preferences. In the North Shore types of seats – the key to Labor really taking over is if they ditched the trade unions – and moved toward a more social democratic model. The sight of Labor being beholden to the Unions just does not wash in these seats.

    The Corbyn model might have had some attractions in 2017 – hard to tell in the current Brexit imbroglio what ideas hold sway beyond being in or being out. In the US, the AOC model would probably go down well in the North East or parts of California but if they were their own party , they would probably be stuck at 10% like the Greens here.

  5. I guess Jodie has the advantage of being able to claim that she was the victim of one of the Terrigals’ most egregious jape. However, by 2023 its unlikely many of the electorate will remember those notorious days

  6. I would argue the Greens would need a new leader and the party shift towards a Democratic Socialist stance on economics, emulating the British Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn or the Democratic Socialists of America who Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a part of.

    I completely agree.

  7. Lars Von Trier @ #219 Sunday, June 9th, 2019 – 5:49 pm

    It doesn’t seem right to me that the $6m should pass tax free to the heirs.

    Yeah, and then what happens if the heirs were of modest means and decided they’d rather keep the house than sell it? Are you going to have the state force them to sell so that it can collect its $600k? Or bankrupt the recently bereaved over it if they refuse?

    Why not embrace this type of policy?

    Maybe because Labor just lost an election for trying to embrace a much, much less controversial policy platform?

    Seriously, anyone suggesting this is the sort of thing Labor should be considering right now probably just secretly wants to see them keep losing. Getting the Liberals to endorse an inheritance tax is a much better idea. 🙂

  8. AOC is a new congresswomen holding a super safe district and while she has excited certain sections of the Democrats Party but she is largely untested on the national stage, it is way too early to start the hero worship of everything she says.

    Corbyn seems to have lost the plot in recent months and looks likely he could lose the next general election despite looking competitive twelve months ago.

    The problem I have with people putting these two (foreign) politicians on a pedestal is that they speak for and to issues in their countries so what they purpose may not be practical in the Australian context, take health care, we already have an extensive public health system so what AOC puts forward on healthcare isn’t relative to the Australian context.

  9. a r I’m guessing heirs of “modest means” wouldn’t snub the opportunity of scoring a cool $5.4 million – just because it might have been 6 million.

  10. Big A Adrian

    They wont snub the $5.4 million but they will notice the other $600k and for many it would drive them to vote against any politician responsible for it. Say 10% are okay with it, that leaves around 55% of the population that wont be happy with it. That 55% doesn’t include family members and friends who will be hearing about it.

  11. Lads: ‘It doesn’t seem right to me that the $6m should pass tax free to the heirs.”

    Why doesn’t it seem right?

  12. Labor voted for legislation to undermine democracy and that moron Dreyfus wrote demanding the leak be investigated. Weak as piss.

  13. The Liberal abuse press freedom. According to the Greens, the Press and the Liberals, this is all Labors fault. Nothing has changed; no help for Labor, but from opposition they have to fix the countries problems.

  14. Mexicanbeemer:

    If the Greens want to shift their party closer to the Corbyns and AOCs of the world, I say go for it.


  15. PeeBee says:
    Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 7:51 pm

    Lads: ‘It doesn’t seem right to me that the $6m should pass tax free to the heirs.”

    Why doesn’t it seem right?

    If assets were deemed to be sold on death and the capital gains tax was not discounted it wouldn’t.

  16. Dio:

    Yes Labor supported Dutton’s and the coalition’s bills. What’s weaker is they are allowing the debate to be framed against their supporting the legislation, rather than the govt’s actions, as DisplayName said earlier.

    As to Drefus, he has been pretty adamant that was not the case.

    Mark DreyfusVerified account@markdreyfusQCMP
    Jun 7
    1. Labor did not refer the matter to the AFP, nor ask the government to do so. 2. As is clear from the letter, my concern was with the internal chaos of the Turnbull leadership threatening good government. 3. This is already on public record https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-29/labor-blames-government-for-security-leak/9708594

  17. The problem with an inheritance tax is that it can probably be easily worked around given enough long term planning, but if the person dies unexpectedly then the full tax will have to be paid.

  18. The only threat to the Coalition in inner urban “leafy suburb’ seats comes from “progressive” liberal independents.

    When push comes to shove the fear of putting a party of the relative left in charge of the treasury will always be enough to kill off a Labor or green challenge at federal level.

    The best hope for Labor or the greens is that over time inner urban densification leads to some of these seats becoming less “leafy” more town houses and unit blocks, more renters, young singles, uni students, etc.

  19. Fess
    This is what Dreyfus wrote;
    “It is therefore incumbent on you to establish an investigation into how such sensitive information held by members of your government was able to find its way into the public domain.”
    The AFP is the body which carries out leak investigations. For Dreyfus to say he didn’t refer to the AFP is disingenuous in the extreme. He thinks we are as stupid. The guy is a knob.

  20. The Greens are not a party of the Left. They are in every possible sense an anti-Labor drum kit.

    The sooner they dissolve themselves the better it will be for social justice in this country.

  21. If we look at the core inner city areas that the Greens have been targeting during the life of this blog, they are now all safe ALP seats and when it comes to LNP seats, the Greens are only managing to gain the preexisting ALP vote.

  22. One of the principles of a good tax system i have heard, is that it should discourage bad things, and not discourage good things.

    Taxing things like Cigarettes, Alcohol are good, GST exemptions for fresh food is good tax policy.

    Death is unavoidable, taxing a person upon death isnt going to modify their behavior in a positive way during life. It would be better to increase taxes on earnings or spending.

    They could legalize Marijuana and tax it if they really want to increase taxes, that would take money from the black market and help the government.

  23. Dio:

    And as was reported at the time, Labor was more concerned about the chaos and dysfunction in the govt, as anyone would be.

  24. Zoomster

    Sure the Greens held Melbourne and did so with a swing but before the ALP lost its candidate there was talk of the seat being possibly close. Adam Bandt has done well to build his majority but at some stage the seat could drift back, the state seats within the area delivered mixed results at the last state election with the ALP easily holding Richmond with the Greens narrowly holding Melbourne and narrowly gaining Brunswick.

  25. The biggest issue for Labor is working out why it lost the 2019 election. So much hinges on working out the right answer to that question.

    It will be interesting to hear Albo’s answer in good time.

  26. Diogenes says:
    Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 7:55 pm
    Perhaps the beneficiaries of the will should pay stamp duty when they inherit a house.

    My FIL gave my OH his car after he lost his licence some years ago. When changing over the registration to OH, I had to get a Road Worthy Certificate and pay the stamp duty on the transfer.

    Rather than go through that again, we just ‘loan’ cars between family members, rather than gifting/selling them. It saves the hassle of transferring regos with associated stamp duty.

  27. Albo gave a good speech, as did Richard Marles. There was an over-flowing crowd to welcome them both. They said the things that needed to be said. The challenge is formidable. Of this there is no doubt. But the spirit is strong. Labor will fight.

  28. PeeBee

    Surprised by that. I once signed my share of the house over to my husband. Stamp duty and other charges were waived (although the guy who registered the transfer obviously thought I was being too trusting…)

  29. On John Setka, one has to wonder if he actually knows what happened because to say her case is about “men’s rights” is just plain dumb for anyone to make as the crime was father on son with Rose Batty being impacted by that.

  30. Z
    Stamp duty on house transfer between spouses is basically exempt. But it does apply to kids except farms. Perhaps on death, transfer to a spouse should be free but not exempt to kids. It’s a state issue I gather.

  31. When it comes to tax nobody want to pay it, nobody cares if other people have to pay it but they don’t.Most people don’t smoke so they don’t care about cigarette taxes.

    So if you are going to advocate tax rises you better be pretty confident that you can convince a significant majority of the electorate that they will safely quarantined from it.

    I know Howard fell over the line in 98, but he had a huge chunk of canon fodder he could afford to lose.

  32. It’s pretty clear there are many reasons why Labor lost. Taken together they illustrate how difficult it is for Labor to win from Opposition.

    The most important realisation is that only Labor can address the issues that challenge us. Only Labor. But this does not mean Labor will necessarily win. Rather, it illustrates the heights we must first scale. We must try all the harder precisely because there is no alternative.

    We not only let ourselves down. We let down the entire country. We must not allow this to happen again.

  33. The Lib-kin might like to imagine they can supplant Labor and become a party of Government. They really are dreaming. Even Labor, with a record of incomparable service to the people, cannot easily win. The Right would eat Greens for breakfast. They should reconsider the part they play in Australian politics, and renounce the dysfunction they instigate.

  34. One of the purposes of taxation is to reduce inequality of wealth and income.

    An inheritance tax has to be seen in this light.

    On the other hand, there are plenty of other ways of reducing inequality of wealth and income.

    Enacting a federal Job Guarantee so that the under-employment rate is always zero and the unemployment rate is never above 2 percent is a crucial step.

    Lifting the minimum wage from $19.49 to $25 per hour is another crucial step.

  35. Nicholas, I agree with you.

    Labor will adopt measures to increase wages, to place full employment at the centre of policy, to redress inequality.

    These measures are coming.

  36. Nicholas
    If increasing the minimum wage is such a good way of reducing inequality, Australia should already have very low inequality compared to other countries as we have the highest minimum wage in the world.

  37. Dio
    That minimum wage is part of the reason why inequality isn’t as bad in Australia as elsewhere, the main problem here is the barrier to opportunities for those outside looking in and a tax wont fix that.

  38. Mb
    I agree. I think the main inequality is for the unemployed, students, pensioners, disabled and sick. That’s who we should be helping more.

  39. I would be wary of proposing an inheritance tax, particularly from Opposition.

    There are predistribution measures – full employment policies, a higher minimum wage – that can reduce inequality just as well without arousing all the resentment of a new tax.

    Public services and public infrastructure are in desperate need of additional investment.

    There is an immense amount of good that can be achieved by increasing the size of the federal government’s deficit. The non-inflationary fiscal space is available. The government should use it.

    It would be political malpractice to court unpopularity with no clear purpose in view.

  40. Nicholas
    Historically much of Australia’s public infrastructure has been funded by debt rather than tax revenue. Today the Victorian Government is making use of debt to fund a number of projects from rail to roads.

  41. Diogenes says:
    Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 9:08 pm

    Mb
    I agree. I think the main inequality is for the unemployed, students, pensioners, disabled and sick. That’s who we should be helping more.
    ———————————————

    Agree and if we look at each of those groups there are various things that can be done to improve these groups and in some cases its simply a matter of changing how a policy works.

Comments Page 6 of 28
1 5 6 7 28

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *