Gillard was wrong, but we don't care

The Prime Minister says she has "done nothing wrong", but it seems that hardly any Australians accept that. Whether that is a problem for the government is another matter, as Australians are not enamoured of the opposition's pursuit of the issue either.

While Newspoll finds that the government's vote dived over the same week that Julie Bishop relentlessly grilled Julia Gillard over the AWU scandal, the grilling may not be the principal cause.

Out of a virtual online focus group of 587 balanced by voting intentions, only 11 per cent approve of the Prime Minister's actions in the early 90s when she established a "slush fund" for her then boyfriend while 49% disapprove.

As would be expected Liberal voters are vehemently disapproving, but this isn't counter-balanced by support from Labor voter.

While 4 per cent of Labor voters disapprove of her actions, only 26 per cent approve. That means that 67 per cent are neutral - neutrality being the position of those who do not want to defend her, but do not want to be disloyal either.

More worryingly for the government only 5 per cent of undecided voters approve, while 50 per cent disapprove. The position with Greens voters is not strong either, with 19 per cent approving and 14 per cent disapproving.

Superficially this looks like good news for the Opposition, but it isn't. Only 41 per cent approve of their tactics in pursuing the matter, with fewer (25 per cent) agreeing with Senator Brandis's proposition that "there is a criminal in the lodge".

So when it comes to whether it changes votes, only 11 per cent say it will, although, amongst swinging voters this is considerably higher at 30 per cent.

There are a number of reasons why the situation appears to be a stalemate.

There is a difference between thinking that someone has done something wrong, and thinking that it matters. It is only the strongest supporters of Gillard's who buy the "young and naïve" line, but there is a large body of opinion that thinks while she is dishonest, she is still honest enough.

As a lawyer and a politician she is a member of two professions with an indifferent reputation for honesty. Her main accuser, Julie Bishop, shares the same disability. So when they confront each other in the house for many voters it is a case of "pot, meet kettle".

Then there is the question of relevance. If you think that both sides of parliament are equally dishonest, the only relevant question is which one will look after your interests better.

The opposition has failed to demonstrate that the prime minister's behaviour has any bearing on the current policy or performance of her government and voters want to know why they wasted a week for no return.

At another level while the public is prepared to accept that Julia Gillard did the wrong thing as a solicitor, the opposition is trying to make out a case beyond that, as evidenced by Brandis's allegation of criminality. The disjunction between the two is another problem for them.

I have only ever once seen a government brought down for criminality, and that was the government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

I'm sure it's not the only government in Australia's history where there was bribery and corruption, and despite strong allegations that it was corrupt it not only survived elections, but thrived.

What brought Bjelke-Petersen down ultimately was not allegations pursued with forensic vigour in parliament by the opposition, but the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry that the government itself set up and which, over the course of two years, spelled out in detail wrongdoing leading to the jailing of three former ministers and a police commissioner.

Even then it took some time before the dam broke and voters moved from the National Party right across to Labor.

I have seen lesser allegations do damage, but it has generally not been the charge itself that does the damage, but the context in which it is wielded.

In 2006 Victorian Liberal leader Ted Baillieu was targeted as "Ted the Toff from Toorak" and allegations made about conflicts of interest.

The ALP campaign succeeded not because the allegations were true, or because voters thought they mattered in themselves, but because they reinforced perceptions that already existed that Baillieu wasn't really interested in the average voter.

A similar campaign in 2012 in Queensland against Campbell Newman didn't work, and he won in an unprecedented landslide, because he stuck to the things that mattered to voters.

Indeed, making allegations and failing to substantiate them can blow-back on the accuser, as Liberal Peter Debnam found in the 2006 NSW election.

Polling by Newspoll and others suggests that there may be an element of blow-back in the AQU affair. The pressure on Gillard has at last forced the "real Julia" to come out, and her approval rating rose at the same time that Abbott's fell.

Ironically, this undermines the "young and naïve" defence, as how could one believe this dominant woman could have been conned back then, but voters don't necessarily mind, because that was then, and a strong, determined and ruthless woman might be what we need now.

There is still a way to go on this issue, and the opposition may yet bend it to their advantage.

There may be evidence of serious criminality, but for that to matter the police would need to lay charges.

Or they may change direction, lower their sights, and use the affair to reinforce community hesitations about the prime minister's character.

I've always regarded allegations of personal wrong-doing as irrelevant to political campaigning, and there is nothing in this polling to contradict that point of view.

It seems that Tony Abbott came reluctantly to this campaign. Perhaps his first instinct was correct.

That is something for him to think about over the Christmas turkey.