The Census and Labor's Catholic vote

This will include detailed data such as age profiles, income levels, family composition, education qualifications and religious affiliation. The 2006 census data has been twice sliced and diced. The second time was after the redistributions for the 2010 election.

 

When adjusted to reflect the results of the 2010 election this data presents us with an opportunity to compare religion, incomes and political outcomes in a finely balanced hung Parliament of 150 members. It presents some valuable insights which are likely to be confirmed by the 2011 Census.

 

In the 2010 election Christians (63.9 per cent of the population) tended to support the Coalition, but not by much. Of the 75 most Christian electorates, the Coalition holds 39, Labor holds 33, and rural Independents hold three. However, of the 50 most Christian, Labor holds only 20. Prior to the 2010 election Labor held 43 of the 75 most Christian electorates and 27 of the 50 most Christian seats.

 

The distribution of those with no religion (18.7 per cent of the population) ranges from 6.5 per cent in McMahon to 30.1 per cent in Kingston. Labor has less than half of the electorates that have the highest proportions of those with no religion: 33 of the top 75 and 23 of the top 50. So Labor appears to get no electoral benefit from those who report no religion.

 

How did Labor get enough seats to form a minority Government in 2010? The answer is found in the separation of the Catholic vote from the total Christian vote. Catholics (25.8 per cent of the population) provided the votes that underpinned Labor's electoral survival.

 

The Catholic population varies from 44.5 per cent in McMahon to 12.7 per cent in Mayo. Of the 75 most Catholic electorates Labor holds 46, the Coalition 28, and Independent Bob Katter, one. Of the 50 most Catholic electorates, Labor holds 33. Labor holds eight of the 10 most Catholic electorates. At the other end of the scale Labor has only 17 of the 50 least Catholic electorates.

 

So the more Catholic the electorate, the more likely it is to vote for Labor.

 

Is this a reflection of the socio-economic position of Australian Catholics? To test this we can match the most Catholic electorates with the median incomes of households across the electoral divisions. The incomes data shows a spread from Cowper, at $798 per week, to Wentworth, at $2307 per week.

 

Perhaps surprisingly, only 21 of the 50 most Catholic electorates are in the bottom half of the income ranking; 19 of the 50 most Catholic electorates are in the wealthiest 50 electorates; and 11 of those 19 electorates elected Labor members.

 

Labor's origins and its traditional base has been among lower income earners. But this was barely evident in 2010. In the bottom half of the household income scale Labor holds a bare majority: 38 of 75. In the poorest 50 it holds just 24. Labor holds 34 of the 75 wealthiest electorates. Its 72 seats in the hung Parliament are close to equally divided between the two halves of the income scale.

 

The data also ranks electorates by the proportion of families with incomes of less than $650 per week. Of the 50 electorates with the highest number of low income families Labor holds just 25.

 

These figures show that while low income earners have abandoned Labor, a solid base of Catholics have stuck with it.

 

Why did the most Catholic electorates vote for Labor in 2010? Why did so many Catholics prefer a party led by an atheist over a Coalition led by a committed Catholic?

 

One reason is that Catholics have traditionally voted Labor, and family voting practices have been maintained, despite the social mobility of recent generations. Another is that Catholic belief in social justice means that many Catholics prefer a party that is seen to be, or hoped to be, committed to a fairer and more egalitarian society. Social justice remains part of the Catholic DNA. 

 

The problem for Labor is that Catholics may lose faith in it as the party best placed to deliver fair and just outcomes. For Labor, much of its working class base has left the building, and many of its Catholic supporters are standing near the doorway bemused or angry.

 

The problem for the Coalition, and Tony Abbott in particular, is that he is coming under pressure to adopt policies that this large part of the Catholic constituency would regard as unjust. He does not want another Work Choices debate, which cost his party so dearly in 2007. That debate raised a range of social justice issues; fairness in the workplace cannot be separated from fairness in society.

 

Of course, the better the polls for the Coalition, the more likely Abbott will come under pressure to throw caution to the wind and revisit Work Choices.

 

A requirement of political success is the ability to attract non-traditional support while keeping your base. Between now and the next election Labor will have to do some hard thinking about what it stands for and who it represents. Should it adopt policies that will alienate its best base support in the hope of picking up new pockets of support?

 

Rather than this, Labor should re-engage with its traditional low income base. This presents its best chance of holding the Catholic base and restoring the non-Catholic Christian support it gained in 2007, but lost in 2010. It will also send a reassuring message to Australians of non-Christian faiths that this is a nation that cares about social justice and the protection of the poor and the vulnerable.