What do you think?
Rate this book
Quarterly Essay #73
Quarterly Essay 73 Australia Fair: Listening to the Nation
What do Australians want most from their next government? In this vivid, grounded, surprising essay, Rebecca Huntley listens to the people and hears a call for change.
Too often we focus on the angry, reactionary minority. But, Huntley shows, there is also a large progressive centre. For some time, a clear majority have been saying they want action – on climate and energy, on housing and inequality, on corporate donations and the corruption of democracy.
Would a Shorten Labor government rise to this challenge? What can be learnt from the failures of past governments? Was marriage equality just the beginning? In Australia Fair, Rebecca Huntley reveals the state of the nation and makes the case for democratic renewal – should the next government heed the call.
“Often the claim is made that our politics and politicians are poll-driven. This is, on the whole, bunkum. If polls were influential, we would have invested much more in renewable energy, maintained and even increased funding to the ABC, and made child care cheaper. We may already have made changes to negative gearing and moved towards adopting elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. We would have taken up the first iteration of the Gonski education reforms. These are some of the issues where a democratic majority comes together, a basic agreement crossing party lines.” —Rebecca Huntley, Australia Fair
Rebecca Huntley is one of Australia’s leading social researchers. From 2006 until 2015, she was the director of the Mind & Mood Report, Australia’s longest-running social trends report. She is now head of Vox Populi research. Her most recent book is Still Lucky. She presents The History Listen on ABC Radio National.
Too often we focus on the angry, reactionary minority. But, Huntley shows, there is also a large progressive centre. For some time, a clear majority have been saying they want action – on climate and energy, on housing and inequality, on corporate donations and the corruption of democracy.
Would a Shorten Labor government rise to this challenge? What can be learnt from the failures of past governments? Was marriage equality just the beginning? In Australia Fair, Rebecca Huntley reveals the state of the nation and makes the case for democratic renewal – should the next government heed the call.
“Often the claim is made that our politics and politicians are poll-driven. This is, on the whole, bunkum. If polls were influential, we would have invested much more in renewable energy, maintained and even increased funding to the ABC, and made child care cheaper. We may already have made changes to negative gearing and moved towards adopting elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. We would have taken up the first iteration of the Gonski education reforms. These are some of the issues where a democratic majority comes together, a basic agreement crossing party lines.” —Rebecca Huntley, Australia Fair
Rebecca Huntley is one of Australia’s leading social researchers. From 2006 until 2015, she was the director of the Mind & Mood Report, Australia’s longest-running social trends report. She is now head of Vox Populi research. Her most recent book is Still Lucky. She presents The History Listen on ABC Radio National.
122 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 18, 2019
3 people are currently reading
55 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
March 29, 2019
Huntley pleads for an extremely likely Labour Government under Shorten to be socially bold and push towards active policy on climate change, immigration, euthanasia reform, social housing and housing affordability, banning corruption and political donations, advancing disability services and introduce constitutional change for first nations people. Huntleys advocates that through her profession as a social and market researcher that these views are heavily supported by the majority of centerist Australians.
Shortens Government could deliver on all of these issues. However, realistically Australians are use to being let down by leaders who fail to initiate positive action that reflects the beliefs of the broader community and instead get entangled in internal factions or spellbound by political donations and rampant corruption with industry lobbyists and unions. It is increasingly evident that Australian prime ministers ignorantly neglect that they are the leader of the nation rather then the leader of their party.
Shortens Government could deliver on all of these issues. However, realistically Australians are use to being let down by leaders who fail to initiate positive action that reflects the beliefs of the broader community and instead get entangled in internal factions or spellbound by political donations and rampant corruption with industry lobbyists and unions. It is increasingly evident that Australian prime ministers ignorantly neglect that they are the leader of the nation rather then the leader of their party.
March 24, 2019
Rebecca Huntley uses her experience as a political market researcher to shows trends of Australian voters. She demonstrates that above all, Australians care about fairness in policy. While some argument come out of Canberra are able to leverage on fear and inflate concerns of a minority to gain policy prominence on the whole the polity have a healthy appetite for social democracy.
While we want to live out the Australian dream, we only want to do so in a society that takes care of those who are vulnerable. Leadership lacking gumption continuously misses the mark but Shorten and his slightly boring platform shows promise in retrospect to recent personality politics.
While we want to live out the Australian dream, we only want to do so in a society that takes care of those who are vulnerable. Leadership lacking gumption continuously misses the mark but Shorten and his slightly boring platform shows promise in retrospect to recent personality politics.
July 2, 2019
Still worth reading but best accompanied by the RN interview with Rebecca post election.
April 17, 2019
This was a pleasant enough read: it didn't say that much, but it didn't take too long to say it, either.
Drawing upon her experience in social research, Huntley argues that Australians are, by and large, more progressive than our politics would have you believe. This includes a preference for redistributive taxation policy, a fairer housing system, and action on global warming. That said, it also includes a strong preference for boat turn backs and mandatory detention, perhaps belying Huntley's argument. This is all used for a worthwhile discussion of what it means to be a "social democrat" in the 21st century, and how past leaders have failed to adopt social democracy for the needs of the present.
The essay is clearly written with a view to the impending election and is virtually written to Bill Shorten and the ALP. In this, it feels a little too supplicatory. Huntley makes good points about what we could expect from a new ALP government. However, to then argue that the ALP should take bold action on important issues /because polling shows there is support for such action/ seems problematic. Especially given where 'the public' seems to stand on refugees, I'm wary of any argument that says a political party should draw inspiration from what focus groups are telling them.
Huntley also struggles to reconcile the fact that voters, despite their stated preferences, continue to vote for parties that have no intention of bringing in popular policies. Indeed, she highlights voter concern for the environment, only to highlight that these concerned voters largely vote for the ALP, and also for the Liberals. Given the environmental records of both parties, this is hardly evidence that voting decisions accord with the stated policy preferences of voters.
Rather, there is plenty of strong evidence for what actually influences voting decisions. George Lakoff and Drew Westen come to mind as authors who have explored this and come up with a much more robust model for understanding how and why voters support parties whose policies they oppose. Huntley's disregard of these thinkers is a disservice to the reader, but also to the ALP - who could surely benefit from a better understanding of how to appeal to the voting public.
Drawing upon her experience in social research, Huntley argues that Australians are, by and large, more progressive than our politics would have you believe. This includes a preference for redistributive taxation policy, a fairer housing system, and action on global warming. That said, it also includes a strong preference for boat turn backs and mandatory detention, perhaps belying Huntley's argument. This is all used for a worthwhile discussion of what it means to be a "social democrat" in the 21st century, and how past leaders have failed to adopt social democracy for the needs of the present.
The essay is clearly written with a view to the impending election and is virtually written to Bill Shorten and the ALP. In this, it feels a little too supplicatory. Huntley makes good points about what we could expect from a new ALP government. However, to then argue that the ALP should take bold action on important issues /because polling shows there is support for such action/ seems problematic. Especially given where 'the public' seems to stand on refugees, I'm wary of any argument that says a political party should draw inspiration from what focus groups are telling them.
Huntley also struggles to reconcile the fact that voters, despite their stated preferences, continue to vote for parties that have no intention of bringing in popular policies. Indeed, she highlights voter concern for the environment, only to highlight that these concerned voters largely vote for the ALP, and also for the Liberals. Given the environmental records of both parties, this is hardly evidence that voting decisions accord with the stated policy preferences of voters.
Rather, there is plenty of strong evidence for what actually influences voting decisions. George Lakoff and Drew Westen come to mind as authors who have explored this and come up with a much more robust model for understanding how and why voters support parties whose policies they oppose. Huntley's disregard of these thinkers is a disservice to the reader, but also to the ALP - who could surely benefit from a better understanding of how to appeal to the voting public.
October 17, 2019
This was a rather depressing read.
Huntley sets out with four assumptions. One: that social democracy is good. Two: that Australians want social democracy. Three: that Shorten's platform was socially democratic. And form: that Shorten would therefore win the 2019 election. These assumptions go unchallenged and proved to be wrong, which is why I'm so eager to read the correspondence of QE74.
Huntley does, however, make a fantastically pithy point about reconciling social democracy and environmentalism:
"Social democracy emerged when better rights for working people dominated many of its claims on the state. Its rhetoric and imagery privileged men employed in forestry, mining, construction and manufacturing—all industries reliant on pillaging the natural world. The values and icons of environmentalism stand in start contrast to this." (p. 14)
With this insight, Huntley could have done a better job at predicting the swings against Labor in their traditional rural homelands. Instead, she takes for granted Labor's win which, admittedly, many in politics (including the Libs) did:
"Pundits from all sides assume a Labor victory... is a forgone conclusion. The size of the victory is all that's in question. (p. 52)
And later:
"Shorten's strength is that people constantly underestimate him. And perhaps an unlikely hero is exactly what Australia needs." (p. 57)
And so while I agree with Huntley's argument that Labor's platform was fairer and better for Australians, I just wish she's showed more of her working out. If it was fairer and better why didn't Australians vote in Labor? I wish she'd interrogate her departing point that virtual signalling in focus groups would translate to votes. But alas this essay—like social democracy in 2019—didn't deliver on I hoped it'd be.
Huntley sets out with four assumptions. One: that social democracy is good. Two: that Australians want social democracy. Three: that Shorten's platform was socially democratic. And form: that Shorten would therefore win the 2019 election. These assumptions go unchallenged and proved to be wrong, which is why I'm so eager to read the correspondence of QE74.
Huntley does, however, make a fantastically pithy point about reconciling social democracy and environmentalism:
"Social democracy emerged when better rights for working people dominated many of its claims on the state. Its rhetoric and imagery privileged men employed in forestry, mining, construction and manufacturing—all industries reliant on pillaging the natural world. The values and icons of environmentalism stand in start contrast to this." (p. 14)
With this insight, Huntley could have done a better job at predicting the swings against Labor in their traditional rural homelands. Instead, she takes for granted Labor's win which, admittedly, many in politics (including the Libs) did:
"Pundits from all sides assume a Labor victory... is a forgone conclusion. The size of the victory is all that's in question. (p. 52)
And later:
"Shorten's strength is that people constantly underestimate him. And perhaps an unlikely hero is exactly what Australia needs." (p. 57)
And so while I agree with Huntley's argument that Labor's platform was fairer and better for Australians, I just wish she's showed more of her working out. If it was fairer and better why didn't Australians vote in Labor? I wish she'd interrogate her departing point that virtual signalling in focus groups would translate to votes. But alas this essay—like social democracy in 2019—didn't deliver on I hoped it'd be.
July 24, 2020
I was a real fool not to read this essay when it first landed in my post box in March 2019. I had a quick look at it as I usually do with Quarterly Essays, felt encouraged about the prospects of the then impending election, and put it aside for later. And of course got distracted by other things. Then the election came along and for reasons that even the experts aren't too sure about, Australians didn't vote for change. I was depressed about that, so I left the book on the shelf, where it might have stayed forever except that Rebecca Huntley is featuring in the upcoming Melbourne Writers Festival, discussing her new book* in a session called "Australia's Response to Climate Change". (Get your tickets here, with a change of director the MWF has an excellent program and it's all digital this year so you can 'attend' wherever you are).
So...
I remembered I had this book, and took it down off the shelf. It turns out that — whatever the result of that peculiar election — I am a lot like other Australians. I don't really care which party wins government, I just want a government that will do things. Huntley is a social and market researcher, and this essay is about the un-silent majority, whose views are plain to discern.
To read the rest of my review please visit https://anzlitlovers.com/2020/07/25/a...
So...
I remembered I had this book, and took it down off the shelf. It turns out that — whatever the result of that peculiar election — I am a lot like other Australians. I don't really care which party wins government, I just want a government that will do things. Huntley is a social and market researcher, and this essay is about the un-silent majority, whose views are plain to discern.
To read the rest of my review please visit https://anzlitlovers.com/2020/07/25/a...
May 13, 2019
An easy and worthwhile read but it doesn't go very far. Huntley argues convincingly that the LNP is out of touch with the majority of the population on a host of issues - environmental concern, the role of government, sex and gender identity, for example - and that the ALP has an opportunity, should it choose to align with these changed values, to genuinely lead the country. I'm pretty sure she's right about the former, but I'm not confident about the latter.
I think Huntley assumes the politics-as-sport metaphor is a reality, an assumption that most of our political journalists, with their endless horse race reporting, also make. That means that her analysis is not much beyond an assertion that the LNP are playing the game badly, and the ALP has a chance to play it "properly". She suggests that all the ALP needs to do is real social democracy, and avoid the temptation to merely play party political tribalism. But petty political tribalism is a feature, not a bug.
I fear that the analysis is not deep enough, because it doesn't look to the interplay of democratic principles and capitalism, and what they are doing to and in neo-liberal societies around the world. Our consensus that a balance between democracy and capitalism is the best way to govern a society is breaking down, and one symptom of that is that political parties have turned into organisations bred to win elections, but not to govern, and as a result a vicious cycle of tribal incompetents on the left and the right (whatever they are in the 21st century) plays musical chairs with national leadership, undermining trust and faith in leadership.
An Australian journalist recently argued (I think it was Peter Hartcher) that the current election campaign puts the lie to the assertion that there is no difference between the ALP and the LNP, because they each have very different election platforms. Huntley, I think, would agree. I don't. The ALP and the LNP are the same kind of organism, evolved to win elections. Policy platforms are just tactics to win those elections, and at any given election one party or another is a better tactician. There's no real desire to tackle the fundamental challenges liberal democracies are facing. The issues that Huntley identifies as ones of concern to many Australians are genuine issues, but they are symptoms of - or rather the frustrations people feel in dealing them are symptoms of - a much deeper malaise.
I think Huntley assumes the politics-as-sport metaphor is a reality, an assumption that most of our political journalists, with their endless horse race reporting, also make. That means that her analysis is not much beyond an assertion that the LNP are playing the game badly, and the ALP has a chance to play it "properly". She suggests that all the ALP needs to do is real social democracy, and avoid the temptation to merely play party political tribalism. But petty political tribalism is a feature, not a bug.
I fear that the analysis is not deep enough, because it doesn't look to the interplay of democratic principles and capitalism, and what they are doing to and in neo-liberal societies around the world. Our consensus that a balance between democracy and capitalism is the best way to govern a society is breaking down, and one symptom of that is that political parties have turned into organisations bred to win elections, but not to govern, and as a result a vicious cycle of tribal incompetents on the left and the right (whatever they are in the 21st century) plays musical chairs with national leadership, undermining trust and faith in leadership.
An Australian journalist recently argued (I think it was Peter Hartcher) that the current election campaign puts the lie to the assertion that there is no difference between the ALP and the LNP, because they each have very different election platforms. Huntley, I think, would agree. I don't. The ALP and the LNP are the same kind of organism, evolved to win elections. Policy platforms are just tactics to win those elections, and at any given election one party or another is a better tactician. There's no real desire to tackle the fundamental challenges liberal democracies are facing. The issues that Huntley identifies as ones of concern to many Australians are genuine issues, but they are symptoms of - or rather the frustrations people feel in dealing them are symptoms of - a much deeper malaise.
September 21, 2020
I didn't enjoy this as much as I have some other Quarterly Essays, and I found Rebecca Huntley kind of grated on me, especially with her cocksure optimism that Labor would take home the 2019 election. Much more interesting was the correspondence section included at the end, which contained responses written by other writers and public figures regarding the preceding essay, Net Loss, about social media.
May 24, 2020
An interesting read of the (misplaced?) optimism and revival of ALP's social democratic values in Australian life if Bill Shorten had won.
"What I love most about Australians … [is] their capacity to learn and change. We are all travelling, learning, growing. Whether we’re conscious of it or not, we’re on our way from something to something else. And along the way, we tend to ditch bad ideas and pick up better ones. Most often these changes are incremental, barely felt. Sometimes they’re traumatic. But the thing I remind myself of is that we do move on.We change. We’re actually pretty good at it."
"What I love most about Australians … [is] their capacity to learn and change. We are all travelling, learning, growing. Whether we’re conscious of it or not, we’re on our way from something to something else. And along the way, we tend to ditch bad ideas and pick up better ones. Most often these changes are incremental, barely felt. Sometimes they’re traumatic. But the thing I remind myself of is that we do move on.We change. We’re actually pretty good at it."
March 21, 2019
This really is an essay, with a linking paragraph at the end of each section leading on to the next, just as we were taught to do in school. In a way, I wish that she had broken free of this template because it tended to infantalize her argument somewhat. Nonetheless, it's a cheering and rather empowering essay to read at a time when we feel that we're actually in a position to vote for a changed political landscape.
For my complete review see https://residentjudge.com/2019/03/21/...
For my complete review see https://residentjudge.com/2019/03/21/...
April 14, 2019
Not bad, but not sure it deserved to be a Quarterly Essay - it was basically an extended OpEd saying "here's how far ahead of the LNP the public are on these issues, and what the ALP could do with this knowledge". A little more speculative than your average QE, and also a little shorter.
Worth reading, but borrow a library copy rather than buy one, and read it before the election, because it's only going to be useful to historians afterwards.
Worth reading, but borrow a library copy rather than buy one, and read it before the election, because it's only going to be useful to historians afterwards.
September 20, 2019
Whoops this essay didn’t age well, based on the premise that the ALP would win the 2019 federal election. Nonetheless if Huntley is correct, she provides hope in a political environment where hope is much-needed, and the essay is an interesting read.
I also enjoyed the correspondence. It was thought-provoking and - rare for Quarterly Essay correspondence - so collaborative and friendly! It made me reserve Smee’s essay from the library immediately.
I also enjoyed the correspondence. It was thought-provoking and - rare for Quarterly Essay correspondence - so collaborative and friendly! It made me reserve Smee’s essay from the library immediately.
October 2, 2020
I have dropped occasionally into this magazine in the past but this one, passed on by a friend, has convinced me to read more. I am going to subscribe and get some intelligent commentary as, hopefully a balance to Murdoch's right wing echo chamber and the trivial nonsense of the commercial media. I should have done long ago!
January 19, 2026
A great short read that I think is still very relevant. A fabulous perspective from someone who did political polling from a living about the values Australians base their votes on and how successive governments have very often betrayed Australian public sentiment. I think it’s a great read if you want to understand trust and mistrust of government in this country.
May 12, 2019
Pleasant enough read.
June 23, 2019
Rebecca raises the important issues facing Australians prior to their general election in 2019 - they are presented concisely and in a reasonably balanced manner.
July 15, 2019
Was quoting Rebecca for days after reading this!
August 5, 2019
Reading this reinforces my view that Morrison’s victory was crafted through deceit!
August 28, 2019
3.5 stars
March 25, 2020
The content is good but the tone is a bit "inner-city leftie". It was often painful as Huntley got the outcome of the 2019 election so wrong.
May 20, 2019
The author states that polls indicate that Australians are ready for progressive changes (environment, climate etc) but the political parties are not ready to own them or show the courage to make changes that will leave a legacy.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews