It was the week before Christmas and Adelaide was alive with Labor party people as well as journalists, unionists, protesters, fellow travellers, interested observers and the men and women of business and civil society, there to network assertively with what was likely to be the next federal government. It was the Australian Labor party national conference, held every three years, at which Labor updates its platform and policies, showcases its leaders and tries to speak to both base and electorate. This 2018 conference had to radiate unity and readiness to take power. And it seemed to do just that.

It was my first conference in about 15 years. I was intrigued to see who stalked the corridors of the Adelaide Convention Centre. Kon Karapanagiotidis from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre was there, hoping that the party would endorse more compassionate policies on asylum seekers. Tim Winton floated in and out, attracting admiring stares from political animals who read fiction, hoping to get a commitment from Labor to protect his beloved Ningaloo Reef. These two issues – asylum seekers and the environment – have derailed Labor many times in the past 20 years, assisting in the bleeding of votes to the Greens in inner-city Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, and worrying the hardheads of the right focused on marginal seats in Queensland and western Sydney.

For a moment it seemed Labor under Rudd would fuse social and economic justice with belief in action on climate change

In 2018, Labor politicians and delegates talked about how a Shorten Labor government would make Australia a fairer, more compassionate, greener and smarter place. I thought to myself that this was, in fact, not quite true. The majority of Australians already inhabit such a place, at least in their beliefs and outlook. In that respect, they have been ahead of the political class for many years now. The role of a new federal Labor government would not be to change hearts and minds. All a Labor government would have to do – if it were to fulfill its election commitments – is update policy and law to reflect the views and desires of the democratic majority.

In the week before the conference, my father asked me about the Labor leader. What would a prime minister Shorten be like?

I paused to reflect, then said, “You know, it’s going to be fine.”

My sister retorted, “Well, there’s a decline for you. The Labor party has gone from ‘It’s time’ to ‘It’s fine’ in three generations.”

It’s not surprising that voters like my sister have scaled back their hopes for a visionary government, after the disappointments of Kevin ’07. For a moment then, it seemed a modern Labor government under Kevin Rudd would fuse the traditional politics of social and economic justice for working- and middle-class people with a new politics of belief in action on climate change. And remain in government for numerous terms to cement its vision for the future.

The only grand visions Australians see nowadays are beamed to us across the Pacific, the erratic ideas of an extreme-right populism, which mostly provoke fear and loathing here. And yet the conditions exist for Labor to be something more than just an “It’s fine” government, for it to do more than merely catch up with the people. There is an opportunity to renew social democracy, Australian-style. The main aim of social democracy – to “reconcile capitalism, democracy and social cohesion” – is even more relevant after the global financial crisis, the banking royal commission and with rising economic inequality.

A revived democracy is possible – if Labor is willing not only to follow through on its policy pledges but also to enact and embed a new social-democratic tradition with environmental concerns at its core. If it has the guts to respond to public anger about corruption and corporate influence on the political class. If it has the determination and skill to use a different political rhetoric to frame the issues that matter to Australians – not just by what is merely profitable, but by what is right. And if it can muster the gumption to argue creatively and consistently that the social-democratic policies that many of us want require not only reform of the taxation system to make it more equitable, but also higher taxation across the board.

That is what a truly progressive politics would look like. In many respects, it would be the expression of the wishes of the majority of Australians, who are desperate not just to “move forward” but to see genuine progress, in our country and our politics.

How do we know this about the Australian people? Because the research tells us so. I am a social and market researcher, involved in the “dark arts” of focus groups, polling, surveys, and strangers who ring you in the middle of dinner to ask your view of your local candidate. No doubt my profession has been under attack for many years as contributing to the corruption and mendacity of party politics. Not only are our methods questioned, and the ways in which our work is used criticised, but the veracity of our conclusions is constantly doubted. It’s common for commentators to say on election night that the polls got it wrong. Even our nearest and dearest can join in the chorus of disapproval: as a jokey response whenever a work colleague asks what his wife does for a living, my husband replies, “She’s an expert in the opinions of people who don’t know what they are talking about.”

While it is true that some polling (namely, seat-based robopolling) can be unreliable, there is no evidence that national political polls in Australia are inaccurate. In fact, history shows that such polls produce exceptionally accurate results, even with the transition from landlines to mobile phones and online surveys over the past decade or so. As well as many national polls, there are myriad datasets on politics, including the Australian Election Study (AES), the Australian Values Survey (AVS), the Scanlon Foundation’s various reports, and issues polls such as the Essential Report, the Ipsos Issues Monitor and the Lowy Institute Poll. Increasingly, the CSIRO and like organisations are also doing substantial research on public attitudes.

Taken together, this research gives a consistent and reliable picture of where the majority of Australians sit, not just on politics but on a range of issues. Thanks to compulsory voting, there is no silent majority in Australia. There is an un-silent majority, whose views are plain to discern.

But are these views being heeded by our political leaders? Often the claim is made that our politics and politicians are poll-driven. This is, on the whole, bunkum. While fluctuations in the polls might be used by political frenemies to destabilise, there is no consistent evidence that the policy agenda of the major parties has been shaped mainly by opinion polls.

If such polls were influential on policy and politics, we would have made big investments in affordable and social housing, banned foreign donations to political parties and further curtailed corporate donations to political parties, invested much more in renewable energy, maintained and even increased funding to the ABC, and made child care cheaper.

We would have also made marriage equality a reality through an act of parliament without an expensive and hurtful postal survey (the most wasteful piece of market research in the history of Australia). We may already have made changes to negative gearing and moved towards adopting elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. We would have made euthanasia legal across the country and started the process leading to a republic. We would have put more funding into Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We would have taken up the first iteration of the Gonski education reforms. We would be installing a world-class national broadband network.

These are some of the issues on which this democratic majority comes together: topics that attract 60% or higher public support if we refer to all the available surveys, a basic agreement crossing party lines, stretching from soft Liberal and Labor to Green and independent voters – and even (on some issues such as euthanasia and donation reform) to One Nation voters.

Quarterly Essay Australia Fair, by Rebecca Huntley.

The views of this democratic majority – on issues such as housing, the environment, immigration and aspects of our democratic system – may or may not surprise the reader. But understood in their complexity, these views show clearly that the opportunity is there for an incoming Labor team to be bold in its approach to government, unapologetic in its advocacy for the public sector, and courageous in its leadership on the environment. Even on the vexed issue of immigration and asylum seekers, there is potential for a less defensive, more open approach. All in all, Australians are ready for reform, and more ready for the revival of social democracy than many assume.

This is an edited extract of Rebecca Huntley’s Quarterly Essay 73 Australia Fair – Listening to the Nation