Leading questions and Australia’s defence and foreign policy

Being frustrated with the framing of, and conclusions drawn from, political polling is an evergreen experience in life, but I feel compelled to offer a critique of some of today’s Essential poll on Australia’s foreign policy as published by The Guardian.

Polling can be a useful tool in gauging public perceptions. Equally, it’s valuable to see what conclusions a self-declared “progressive strategic communications and research company” arrives at on foreign policy (just as it would be with a company of any other political lens). To add another disclaimer for the sake of absolute clarity: of course, people can quite reasonably hold different positions on Australia’s defence and foreign policy and components thereof. However, there are good and bad (un/helpful?) ways of framing questions.

My biggest frustration is that the two most consequential questions are shaped by false dichotomies. First, must Australia be either “primarily a US ally” or an “independent middle power with influence in the Asia-Pacific”?

Australia is a middle power with influence in the Asia-Pacific. Australia also is a key US ally. Australia’s influence in Asia comes, in part, from the fact that it is an ally of the US. This question presumes that they are mutually incompatible, when reality disproves the claim. Australia’s military capabilities are, in part, a product of the alliance. The security burden carried by the US allows Australia to play a more active role further abroad without investing as much in our defence. Australia also pursues interests independently of the alliance.

That doesn’t mean you have to think that AUKUS is good policy, or that we shouldn’t re-assess what the alliance looks like in the event of a second Trump administration. But it does the Guardian’s readers a disservice to suggest that it must be one or the other. Alliance or independence.

Likewise, it simply does not follow from the data that “just one in five Labor voters are aligned with the government position [on AUKUS]”, as Peter Lewis claims. AUKUS (from my reading of the questions) was never even mentioned in the poll. I’d love to see some detailed polling on AUKUS, but this ain’t it.

Interestingly, a subsequent question on the defence budget notes that half of respondents believe its share of spending is right. That doesn’t strike me as a particular condemnation of defence priorities.

Secondly, on Australia-China ties, must China be either “a complex relationship to be managed” or “a threat to be confronted”? Would not the dominant framing of “complex” also include the prospect of threat?

Judging from this data, 2/3 Australians have consistently refused to be drawn into a false binary on the Australia-China relationship. This is good news! The relationship is demonstrably complex and requires careful management. But any such management may, at times, require confrontation.

I’ll draw a line under it there, but if you want to read more, this is the link to the full poll.