|
||||
 |
 |
 |
|
  |
|
|
||||
          
|
||||
| NEWS : Papers : | ||||||||||||||
The Mind and Mood of Australia
(just a little unplugged)
Australian Institute of Company Directors Presented by Michele Levine, Chief Executive Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd Melbourne, Australia May 29, 2003
On Budget night May 2001, with support for the L-NP Government at a record low, Consumer Confidence low, real unemployment high, the Australian dollar low, and the economy stalled on the GST, Gary Morgan and I presented a paper to CEDA and PricewaterhouseCoopers . The paper was, in hindsight, prophetically entitled, "Only Real Leadership Or A Crisis Can Save The L-NP Coalition". Since then we have seen:
The L-NP is still in Government today. So what is the mood of the people - my working title and the answer to that question is "just a little unplugged". We are no longer really "plugged in" - linked into an understandable, reasonable, and predictable corporate reality - everything is not in good order with everything very much as it should be. But nor are we completely "unplugged", so we can step back and understand what's going on - where it all fits, and have a rational well-considered view. We're "just a little unplugged". Our research is showing heightened levels of uncertainty and fear, and we're not talking fear of having to pay more tax or fear of unemployment. In fact, Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence - which measures people's expectations of their own financial situation and the Australian economy - is high. Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence is running at 127 - the highest since July 1994. No, the fear and uncertainty relates to world unrest. Towards the end of 2002, 76% of Australians were concerned that 2003 would be a year of global unrest (Finding No. 3585). There is also a concern voiced among the people following the dramatic events surrounding HIH, AMP, and Pan Pharmaceuticals, that there are likely to be more, not less, of these problems in the near future (58% said more, 34% said lower, 8% couldn't say). At the same time, and probably inextricably intertwined with this heightened insecurity is a loss of confidence in most fundamental institutions:
Australians' sense that we can believe what we hear is at a very low ebb.
Whether we've succumbed or not to watching Channel Ten's "Big Brother" or "The Matrix", we all know George Orwell's "Big Brother" in 1984, or we know Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". The uniting theme is, of course, that "all is not as it seems - you can't believe what you see or what you are told". But perhaps we have forgotten the key of 1984 - words don?t mean what we think they mean. We are now living with "newspeak", embedded reality. Only 18% of Australians rate TV Reporters as high on honesty and ethics. Less than 10% of Australians rate Newspaper Journalists as high on honesty and ethics (Finding No. 3581). In 1998, I presented a paper to CEDA entitled, "The Mood of the People and the Election - Listen Carefully". In 1998, I think the issue was "listening" - or the need to listen. In the aftermath of the June 1998 Queensland election in which Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party was recognised as a growing force, there was much talk of "listening to the people". I pointed out that One Nation existed in 1998 because those who had lost, or feared loss, had no mechanism by which they could be heard. "The buggers won't listen to me. You can ring up the radio stations and the politicians won't listen. (You can) write to parliamentarians and they don't reply. I feel left out, unlistened to and ostracised, " said a Brisbane man in his late fifties. - "The Mood of the People - Listen Carefully" Today, there is much "listening activity" - we have institutionalised "listening" - politicians listen to their electorates, companies listen to their customers, some Company Boards listen to their shareholders - but do they respond to them? In 1999, Steve Bracks listened to and responded to the Victorian electorate and is now Premier. Do most politicians listen and respond? Do Company Board members listen to their shareholders, understand them, really seek to make sense of what they are saying, take responsibility, and ask the questions their shareholders want them, and need them, to ask? While it is relatively easy to listen, if we really want to understand and make sense of what people have to say, and be able to communicate with them and respond responsibly to them, we need to see the world from their perspective. Today, people still do not feel they have a voice that they can make heard, they are more uncertain and fearful, they have experienced a loss of confidence in the fundamental institutions that they could normally trust, and they feel they can't believe what they are told. At the heart of the Roy Morgan Research business is asking questions, recording and analysing the answers. For more than sixty years, with over 4 million interviews, more than 10,000 focussed discussion groups and in-depth interviews, Roy Morgan Research has been representing the views of Australians to Australians. This, of course, is at the heart of what Roy Morgan (the man) set out to do in the early 1940s. "I have spent the best part of my life measuring public opinion. I believe people's views matter and that measuring public opinion is extremely important." - Roy Morgan Just before he died in 1985, Roy Morgan was asked why measuring public opinion was important. His answer, which I agree with, was in three parts as follows: Firstly, "To stop journalists from claiming to be able to write "The public demands, etc.," when they don't know what public opinion is on that particular subject." Secondly, to identify the real question - the central "core" of a problem. "This forces people to face the problem. Public opinion polls not only do this, but also make sure that (by publication) the public and journalists know the problem and the public's attitudes towards the issue (as percentages). This forces our leaders and the public to recognise the real problem and hopefully consider it." Thirdly, "Publishing several times a year* reasonably accurate percentages for voting intention. This created a continuous 'election atmosphere', rather than a phoney atmosphere created by so called 'leaders' and journalists." *Today, the Morgan Poll asks voting intention each week. I feel very fortunate to be able to "plug out" of the world of media, and respond to the mind and mood of Australian people. "A little unplugged" is a language closer to reality these days when you have access to the Roy Morgan Information System. I would like to share with you what we've learned about how Australians are responding to some of the big issues today - the War in Iraq, the Governor-General, corporate collapses.
First, the war. In the lead up to the US military attack in Iraq - Australia was deeply divided on the issue (Article No. 36, Finding No. 3615, Finding No. 3616). Now that the military campaign in Iraq is over and the regime of Saddam Hussein destroyed, many questions still remain for Australians, and indeed, people all over the world. Is the world now a safer place or more dangerous? Is there now greater stability in the Middle East or less? Has the threat of terrorism been reduced? What about the reconstruction of Iraq - who should be involved and who should pay for Iraq's reconstruction? What has been the effect on the image of the United Nations and indeed the United States following the War in Iraq? What will be the impact in the Middle East? A Roy Morgan and Gallup International poll, conducted in 45 countries among more than 35,000 people, found more Australians fear that the world is a more dangerous place (49%) than believe it is a safer place (34%) as a result of the War in Iraq - and there is concern about increased terrorism. Few believe the threat of terrorism has been significantly reduced by the War in Iraq (24%) - most say it has not (69%), (7% can't say) (Finding No. 3627). Australia's views about the US, and our relationship with the US, are complex and interesting. When asked about the impact of American foreign policy on Australia - more Australians see it as negative than positive (43% vs 31%). This puts Australia on middle ground globally. For instance, at one extreme, 70% of people in Turkey say the US foreign policy has had a negative effect, and at the other extreme, more than 80% of people in Kosovo and Albania say US foreign policy has a positive effect on their economies. While a majority of Australians (62%) agree with the US that military action in Iraq was justified, the same level majority (63%) believe the US is too keen to use military force in other countries. This is the conflict. In most countries surveyed, the US military action in Iraq had a more negative than positive effect on people's attitude to the US. And again, already mentioned, a majority of Australians (69%) believe that the United Nations has been seriously damaged by recent events. Somehow we are given the impression that the people are a somewhat amorphous "mass" out there - people who are unlike "us", but otherwise relatively indistinguishable from each other - and who shift en masse as the 60-ish percent majority. The reality is there is no such reality - no 60-ish percent majority that moves en masse. There are all sorts of people, in different circumstances, with different backgrounds, beliefs and values. They have very different ways of viewing the world, and everything that goes on in the world. Their reality is their own reality. People make choices, and seek to understand the world and the war in very different ways. The majority who believed the war justified were predominantly older, male, and L-NP voters; while those who believed the US too ready to go to war were more likely to be women, younger, students and Australian Democrat or Green voters. Less than one in three Australians both believed the war was justified, and at the same time believed the US to be too ready to use military force. In Australia, when people were asked whether the US military action had had an effect on their attitude to the US, most said "no". For those for whom it had an effect, the effect was more likely to be a negative one. 48% said that it had "no effect", 18% a "positive" effect and 31% a "negative" effect. On the issue of the UN Roy Morgan Research found that beyond the belief that the UN should have supported military action (61%), was the view espoused by some that the UN's inaction has devalued them. Words like "irrelevant" and "toothless" were used. "They?re just impotent if they do nothing". "Because I think that?s their role, they were not prepared to act so that makes them irrelevant". "Because the UN tends to be toothless". "If the United Nations can?t do it who can? The United Nations is pretty weak and if it can?t do what it?s supposed to, get rid of it, disband it completely". "They are a spineless body and they have no good in this world". There was also a view expressed that a sign of strength and solidarity from the UN would have prevented the war, and especially if France and Germany had come in behind the move. This view is aligned to the more general view that a diplomatic solution would have been better than a military one. "If they had all been in agreement, they may not have gotten to this stage". "If they were seen to have been behind it, it may not have gotten to the point it is now". "I think that if the UN had acted we might not be in the mess we are now in". "If the Coalition stood up there would have been disarmament". - Roy Morgan International Article No. 36 The War in Iraq has raised more questions for Australians about how much we can really believe what we see and hear. Australians - a little more cynical than their US counterparts - are still left with some unanswered questions. Why did there have to be a war? We've been told there was proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; that the world would be a safer place; there would be less threat of terrorism; that Iraq was somehow related to the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York by Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network. The reasons keep changing and therefore we can't trust anything. I'm reminded of George Orwell's quote: "Who controls the present controls the past" - Nineteen Eighty Four from George Orwell (1949) Amidst all these unanswered questions, and half-truth "newspeak" answers, Australians appeared, before the war, to have dealt with the conflicting issues, and formed their views on the war - based on fundamental values. There should be no war under any circumstances. There can be war only if the UN sanctions it. There can be war if it is the US will. The recent rescue of Jessica Lynch was the final blow for gullibility - even those who had never questioned what they read, saw, or heard, had to be a little non-plussed.
The Prime Minister When we see this representation of our Prime Minister in the Mercury, a Tasmanian daily paper, it shows the sorts of concerns Australians are living with.
As all of this has played out Prime Minister Howard's popularity has gone from strength to strength. The most recent Morgan Poll on leadership shows approval of the way John Howard is doing his job is at a high 65% (May 20-22, 2003) - this is up 9% since March 24-25, 2003 - after one week of War in Iraq when Mr Howard's approval was 56%, and substantially higher than the 52% approval Mr Howard received in September 15-17, 2002, amidst high levels of debate over whether Australia should support US President George W Bush's proposed military action against Iraq. (Finding No. 3633, Finding No. 3557, Finding No. 3616). President Bush's approval has also soared (71%)1 as has that of Prime Minister Blair in the UK (47%)2. Australian electors' support of Mr Howard and his L-NP Government has faltered each time a lie, or the possibility of a lie, misinformation, or a cover-up, has been alleged. But it is important to see the situation in context - leaders always gain support in times of war. When there is a war Australians stand behind our national leader - just as it appeared many Iraqis stood behind Saddam Hussein until the end. However, attitude towards "US Democracy" in Iraq will only be known when properly conducted independent public opinion polls can be regularly undertaken . We have been approached to conduct public opinion polls in Iraq but it is still too dangerous.
The Governor-General For over a year, the majority of Australians (66%) have believed Dr Hollingworth not suitable to be Governor-General (only 22% said he was, and 12% couldn't say); and the majority (63%) said he should have resigned (Finding No. 3634). On Sunday, May 25, Dr Hollingworth resigned as Governor-General of Australia. But this is the end point - how did it get to this? Before looking at how the Australian people viewed the Governor-General and the associated controversy, I'd like to suggest the thought that the Governor-General is the ultimate non-executive director. With that thought in mind, we may all listen just a little more carefully to what the people think. Roy Morgan Research's qualitative research uncovered deeply held concerns about the issue of the Governor-General. Many of those who believed Dr Peter Hollingworth to be unsuitable voiced the obvious reasons:
However, there were more fundamental problems - problems associated with the way Dr Hollingworth handled the situation, which gave Australians a window through which to view Dr Peter Hollingworth, the person, and his values. On the fundamental underlying values dimensions, the Governor-General was seen to be:
In terms of innovation, the Republic vs Monarchy issue emerged again, in relation to Dr Hollingworth being seen as not significant, not doing a real job; Australians want someone to be Head of State. He was seen to be run by spin doctors. When it became public that Prime Minister Howard knew six months earlier about the rape allegation, and the secret suppression order, that was the end.
Corporate Australia In the Corporate arena, it is the collapses and the unfair payouts to failed senior executives that appear to be top of mind for Australia. The companies Australians are most likely to recall seeing or hearing about are the embattled AMP (37%), Pan Pharmaceuticals (32%) and HIH (14%). These are all ahead of the majors like Telstra and BHP Billiton (10%), Dick Smith (9%), Coles Myer (7%), Arnotts (6%), Holden and Qantas (5%), and Commonwealth Bank (4%) (Morgan Poll Finding No. TBA).
When specifically asked about AMP, 78% recalled seeing or hearing something about the company recently. Most (70%) were aware that over the last few years AMP has had major difficulties in the UK, which have seen its share price fall by more than 50%. When specifically asked about HIH, 60% recalled seeing or hearing something about it recently. Most (75%) were aware of the Royal Commission into the $5.3 billion collapse of HIH Insurance, and that the primary reasons for the collapse were mismanagement and a failure to provide properly for claims, as well as inadequately responding to pressure in the international industry. Almost every Australian (94%) had seen or heard about Pan Pharmaceuticals recently. Most (86%) were aware of the recall by the Therapeutic Goods Administration of all vitamin and herbal supplements manufactured by Pan Pharmaceuticals after an investigation uncovered substitution of ingredients, manipulated test results and substandard manufacturing processes.
Looking first at AMP. Roy Morgan Qualitative Research identified serious concerns about AMP and their corporate responsibility. There were concerns voiced about the size of the shareholder losses and superannuation losses, described as people's life savings, and for many, it was their own superannuation or someone in their family: "The shareholders have lost a lot of money." "It's hurt a lot of Australians who have shares." "I have relatives with superannuation with AMP, would not want to see them lose it." "People with shares will lose their money." "My parents had shares with AMP." "My super is there." The impact on the Australian economy and job losses was also mentioned: "Not good for Australia." "Concerned to protect the future of Australia, seeing as they're such a large company." "They were one of Australia's largest companies - we are losing shares in the Australian stock market." "There will be a lot of job losses." Also, the broader issue of the impact on the insurance everywhere and the domino effect on other companies:
However, the real issues emerged in relation to AMP's corporate responsibility - poor management combined with excessive payouts and lack of accountability:
Related to these was criticism of the lack of control by the Board, abrogation of their responsibility: "Inability of the Board to control their CEOs, and bring their packages down." "Just the complete abrogation of responsibility by the Board." "The failure of accountability by the previous and current Directors." and poor disclosure: "That they allowed it to happen without letting anyone know." "That they were not fully disclosed." "They've been getting away with things for too long, they're not honest with their investors." "It all seemed underhanded." "They let it go too far before letting shareholders know." "Less than open about telling the shareholders about their money." "AMP was always a company that was trusted - it's a shock to know it's not trustworthy." For HIH, the issues were similar, but there was the added concern over the broad rea |
||||||||||||||
|
© 2007 Roy Morgan Research. All Rights Reserved |
