WHO IS AUSTRALIA’S BEST FRIEND IN ASIA?

Shortly after becoming prime minister, Tony Abbott held talks with his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe, in which Mr Abbott described Japan as “Australia’s best friend in Asia”.1 In April 2014, he concluded a free trade deal with Japan and announced new measures to deepen defence and security ties between the two nations. [2] In the view of the Australian public however, China has as much of a claim to that title as Japan. Asked to choose between Japan, China, Indonesia, India, Singapore or South Korea, 31% of Australians say that China, Australia’s largest trading partner, is ‘Australia’s best friend in Asia’. Twenty-eight per cent choose Japan as Australia’s best friend in Asia, a statistically equivalent result. Next comes Singapore, with 12% seeing it as our best friend in Asia. Indonesia, our largest near neighbour, comes fourth (9%), followed by India (5%) and South Korea (5%).

VIEWS ON CHINA

Australians hold mixed views on China. This year’s ‘thermometer’ (see p 15) recorded Australians’ warmth towards China at 60°, its equal highest score in our history of tracking, reinforcing our finding that many see China as Australia’s best friend in Asia. However, not all aspects of the relationship with China are regarded so warmly.

CHINA AS A MILITARY THREAT



Perceptions of the military threat posed by China have heightened this year. In the view of almost half the Australian population (48%), it is likely that China will become a military threat to Australia in the next 20 years, a significant increase of 7 points from last year. Age and gender make little difference in Australians’ perceptions of this threat.

An explanation for this rising sense of threat may lie in China’s increased military activity in the region in the months prior to this Poll. In early February, Chinese warships conducted their first military exercises in the waters to Australia’s north. In late November 2013, China unilaterally announced an air defence identification zone above the East China Sea, provoking strong responses from several nations including the United States, Japan and Australia. [3]

CHINESE INVESTMENT

Over the last six years of our polling, Australians have expressed a wariness of Chinese investment in Australia. In 2014, a majority (56%) considers that the Australian Government is allowing too much investment from China, compared with a much smaller 34% who say the amount of Chinese investment is about right. Only 4% say the government is not allowing enough investment from China.

AUSTRALIA’S INTELLIGENCE PRACTICES

The actions of Australia’s intelligence agencies have been the focus of recent debate, with allegations that Australia has spied on some of Australia’s neighbours and their political leaders in the past. In response to a new Poll question this year, most Australians (70%) say that it is acceptable for the Australian Government to spy on governments of countries with which Australia does not have good relations. Exactly half say that this is acceptable even against countries with which Australia has good relations. When canvassed about specific countries, a majority of Australians say it is acceptable for Australia to spy on China (65%), Indonesia (62%), East Timor (60%), Japan (58%), our treaty ally the United States (54%), France (53%) and even the neighbour for whom Australians hold the warmest feelings, New Zealand (51%).

RELATIONS WITH INDONESIA: DETERIORATING BUT FRIENDLY

Repeating a question from earlier Lowy Institute polls, we asked Australians this year whether relations with

Indonesia are improving, worsening or staying about the same.

Forty per cent of Australians say the relationship is worsening. This result is 24 points higher than in 2008, but lower than in 2006, at a time when the Schapelle Corby sentencing and a diplomatic row over Australia granting asylum to Papuans generated headlines. In a year which has again seen disruption in diplomatic relations between the two neighbours over allegations of Australian spying, only 7% now see the relationship as improving, considerably lower than the proportion who said this in 2008 and 2006 (26% and 19% respectively), confirming that significant challenges lie ahead for what Prime Minister Abbott has described as “in many respects our most important relationship”. [4] On a more positive note, although many see Australia’s relationship with Indonesia deteriorating, a majority still describe Indonesia’s relationship with Australia as ‘friendly’ (57%).

Policy priorities for the Indonesia relationship

This year we sought to gauge Australians’ views on what should be the policy priorities for Australia’s relationship with Indonesia.

Three clear priorities emerge. Around three-quarters of the population say ‘security in the region’ (75%), ‘terrorism’ (75%), and ‘asylum seekers and people smuggling’ (73%) are the most important areas for the Indonesian and Australian governments to be working on together. Considerably fewer identify ‘trade and investment’ (57%) and ‘aid to Indonesia’ (29%) as ‘very important’. When forced to choose a single issue as most important, more people cited ‘asylum seekers and people smuggling’ (29%) as the most important priority for the two governments to be working on together, with terrorism and security in the region following close behind in importance. Very few (4%) cite ‘aid to Indonesia’ as the most important priority for the Australian and Indonesian governments.

THREATS TO AUSTRALIA’S VITAL INTERESTS

Several times in our polling history, we have asked Australians to rate a list of possible threats to Australia’s vital interests in the next ten years. We reintroduced this question in 2014, identifying a range of twelve potential threats. We included some from previous polls and added a number of new ones reflecting developments in Australia’s security environment over the past few years.

Several times in our polling history, we have asked Australians to rate a list of possible threats to Australia’s vital interests in the next ten years. We reintroduced this question in 2014, identifying a range of twelve potential threats. We included some from previous polls and added a number of new ones reflecting developments in Australia’s security environment over the past few years. ‘International terrorism’ is the foremost threat in the minds of the Australian public today (65% seeing it as a critical threat), along with ‘the possibility of unfriendly countries becoming nuclear powers’ (64% saying critical threat). However, both threats have slipped somewhat in importance over the course of the past decade, with terrorism down eight points and the nuclear threat from unfriendly countries down six points since 2006. Testing public perceptions of an emerging type of security challenge, we included ‘cyber attacks from other countries’ in this year’s Poll, a question which was asked in the United States last year by the respected US polling organisation Pew Research. Australians ranked this fourth of the twelve threats we identified, with 51% seeing cyber attacks from other countries as a critical threat, and an overwhelming 88% seeing it as either a critical or important threat. This reflects similar concerns held in the United States, where 70% of Americans see the possibility of cyber attacks as a ‘major threat’, ranking it the second largest threat to that country behind Islamic extremist groups. [5]

‘Asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat’ was ranked as the fifth greatest threat, with 48% saying it is a ‘critical threat’.

Following revelations in late 2013 about the surveillance activities of Australia’s intelligence agencies, we asked Australians if they saw ‘leaks of classified information about Australia’s intelligence activities’ as a threat. It seems Australians rate intelligence leaks as a threat of only moderate importance. With less than half the population (44%) regarding them as a ‘critical threat’, they rank seventh of all twelve threats.

In 2005, in a result that raised eyebrows at the time, our polling revealed that 57% of Australian adults were ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ worried about ‘US foreign policies’, ranking them equally with ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ as a potential threat from the outside world.[6] Australians now appear to have a much more positive view of US foreign policies. They rank them at the bottom of the list of potential critical threats (26% rating it a critical threat), well below ‘the development of China as a world power’ and ‘instability and conflict on the Korean peninsula’ (both 41%).

Another way of assessing Australians’ perceptions of these threats is to examine the overall importance of particular threats (by adding those people who identify them as ‘critical’ threats to those who see them as ‘important but not critical’). On this analysis, international terrorism and the nuclear threat from unfriendly countries again top the list (respectively, 94% and 93% rating them as either critical or important). However, leaks of information about intelligence activities (76%) and the threat of asylum seekers (75%) lessen in relative importance, and are perceived as the least important threats overall to Australia’s vital interests in the next ten years. This re-ordering of threat perceptions suggests that the lower-ranking threats such as asylum seekers and leaks about intelligence activities are of strong concern to parts of the community, but of lesser concern across the broader population.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING

Last year’s Poll saw the first rise in Australians’ concern about climate change after five successive years of decline from the peak of concern in 2006. The 2014 Poll confirms that upward shift, recording the second consecutive increase in Australians’ concern about global warming. This year, 45% of the population now see global warming as a ‘serious and pressing problem’, up 5 points since last year, while still considerably lower than the 68% who held this view in 2006. Thirty-eight per cent support the intermediate proposition that ‘the problem of global warming should be addressed, but its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost’. Only 15% take the most sceptical view that ‘until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs’.

Concern about climate change differs across age-groups. Australians under 45 years are more likely to regard global warming as ‘a serious and pressing problem’ (51%) compared with 40% of those 45 years and older. Education is also a factor, with only 37% of those with Year 11 or lower education choosing the most serious option, compared with 50% of those with Year 12 or higher education. The Government’s role in reducing carbon emissions A significant majority of Australians (63%) say that the Australian Government ‘should be taking a leadership role on reducing emissions’ in response to a new question in this year’s Poll.

Only 28% think that Australia ‘should wait for an international consensus before acting’, and very few (7%) express the view that Australia ‘should do nothing’.

As with concerns about global warming, attitudes towards Australia’s leadership options on emissions reduction differ according to age. A very substantial 70% of adults aged 18-44 years say that Australia should take a leadership role, compared with 56% of those aged 45 and older.





ASYLUM SEEKER POLICY

The issue of how to deal with asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat has been a rapidly moving policy area provoking a range of complex policy responses. Prior to the 2013 election, the then Labor Government introduced a policy that asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat would be processed offshore and would not be allowed to settle in Australia.[7] Around the same time, the Coalition’s “Operation Sovereign Borders” policy proposed a number of measures, including turning back boats and reintroducing temporary protection visas which prevent permanent residency and family reunions.[8] In this year’s Poll, we tested the appeal of five propositions encapsulating this complex range of policy options.

Australians strongly support the government’s policy of turning back boats: 71% of the Australian public agree that ‘the government should turn back boats when it is safe to do so.’ Around the time of our polling fieldwork, the government’s success in turning back to Indonesia boats carrying asylum seekers had attracted considerable media attention.[9]

Riots broke out at the Manus Island detention centre partway through our fieldwork, resulting in the death of an Iranian asylum seeker.[10] Yet the majority of Australians continue the support for offshore processing which they demonstrated in response to a similar question in last year’s Poll.11 Fifty-nine per cent of Australians this year say that ‘asylum seekers should be processed offshore in places such as Nauru and Papua New Guinea, before deciding whether they should be settled in Australia’.

We also sought to test an idea sometimes urged by those opposed to offshore processing, that all asylum seekers should be processed onshore, whether or not they come by boat. Australians are quite divided on this: 47% agree and 51% disagree that ‘all asylum seekers should be processed in Australia whether or not they come by boat’. Younger Australians are more supportive, with a majority (56%) favouring all processing inAustralia, compared with 38% of Australians 45 years and older.

The question of where asylum seekers should be eventually settled, as distinct from where their claims for asylum are processed, prompts a different response from Australians. When asked about the Rudd Government policy of not allowing any asylum seekers to settle in Australia if they come by boat, less than half (42%) of Australians agree.

Australians appear to be undecided about temporary protection visas, or TPVs. Approximately equal numbers of Australians agree (48%) as disagree (49%) with the policy of granting TPVs which give ‘rights to work and some welfare services, but prevent permanent residency, family reunions and overseas travel’.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT





Foreign investment in Australian companies and agricultural land has been the topic of heated debate in Australia. In 2012, the majority of Australians (63%) were strongly against ‘the Australian government allowing foreign companies to buy Australian farmland to grow crops or farm livestock’, and a further (18%) were ‘somewhat against’ this.[12]

In late 2013 and early this year, the predicaments of companies such as Qantas, SPC Ardmona and Toyota’s Australian operations featured prominently in news headlines.[13] We asked Australians in our 2014 Poll their views on foreign investment across a range of sectors, from agriculture to manufacturing. While majorities are in favour of allowing foreign investment in manufacturing and the financial sector, the prospect of foreign companies investing in Australian agriculture, infrastructure projects such as ports and airports, and the National Broadband Network (NBN) provoked significant opposition. Sixty per cent of Australians are against the government allowing foreign companies to invest in both the agricultural sector and ports and airports. Slightly smaller majorities oppose investment in Qantas (51% against) and the NBN (52% against). Australians are effectively divided on foreign investment in the resources sector (49% in favour, 48% against).

Australians and democracy

For the third year in a row, our Poll results have revealed a high number of Australians who are ambivalent about the value of democracy, despite Australia being one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world.[14]

Presented with three options and asked which one comes closest to your own personal views about democracy’, a quarter of the population say ‘in some circumstances, a non-democratic government can be preferable’ and a further 13% say ‘for someone like me, it doesn’t matter what kind of government we have’. Just 60% believe that ‘democracy is preferable to any other kind of government’.

A surprising aspect of these findings over the years has been the large number of young Australians who reject the view that democracy is preferable to any other kind of government. In 2014, to consolidate and probe these results further, we added an additional 150 interviews with 18-29 year-olds to provide a firmer basis for drawing reliable conclusions from the results.

In 2014, confirming previous Poll findings, only 42% of 18-29 year-olds see democracy as preferable to any other kind of government, compared with 65% of those 30 years and over. A third (33%) of 18-29 year-olds say that ‘in some circumstances, a non-democratic government can be preferable’, and nearly one in five (19%) say ‘it doesn’t matter what kind of government we have’.

DEMOCRACY V PROSPERITY

In a bid to better understand Australians’ ambivalence about democracy, we adapted a question this year which has been asked by Pew Research over the past decade in 56 countries: ‘If you had to choose between a good democracy or a strong economy, which one would you personally choose?’ Only a small majority, 53%, choose ‘a good democracy’, with 42% opting for ‘a strong economy’. Interestingly, only two-thirds (66%) of Australians who prefer democracy over any other kind of government choose ‘a good democracy’ over ‘a strong economy’. The comparison between Australians’ views on this question and populations of other nations is thought-provoking. Their views are similar to those of the British, 56% of whom said in 2009 that a good democracy was more important than a strong economy. In this, Australians and British citizens align closely with populations in Germany (58% opting in 2009 for a good democracy), Turkey (58% in 2012), India (56% in 2007) and Lebanon (53% in 2012). There was much stronger support for democracy in France (73% in 2009) and Spain (68% in 2009). Forty-nine per cent of Americans in 2009 supported democracy, but there were few Russians (19%, 2012), Malaysians (30%, 2007), Indonesians (32%, 2011) and Poles (36%, 2009) who said a good democracy was more important than a strong economy.[15]

Democracy is not working

To explore the thinking of the 40% of Australians who do not agree that democracy is preferable to any other form of government, we presented them with five propositions, and asked them whether each was a ‘major’ or ‘minor’ reason for their views. The strongest response was for the proposition that ‘democracy is not working because there is no real difference between the policies of the major parties’, 45% citing this as a major reason for not preferring democracy. The second strongest response was that ‘democracy only serves the interests of a few and not the majority of society’, cited by 42% as a major reason.

Our results appear to dispel the notion that many Australians believe a different system of government might work better than our existing democratic system.

Only 21% cite as a major reason for not preferring democracy that ‘a more authoritarian system where leaders can make decisions without the processes of democracy achieves better results’. For 36% of Australians, the proposition that ‘I have become disillusioned with Australian politics and think another system might work better’ is a major reason for not preferring democracy.

Similarly, it does not appear that Australians’ equivocal support for democracy can be ascribed to mere apathy. Only 21% say that ‘democracy is the usual form of government now and always will be, so I don’t worry about it’ is a major reason for their lack of support for democracy.

Our Poll results have repeatedly indicated that the 18-29 year-old age group is more dismissive of democracy than their elders. However, their reasons are very similar. When presented with the same five propositions about why they believe democracy is not the preferable form of government, the two most popular responses are democracy only serves the interests of a few and not the majority’ (a major reason for 40%) and ‘democracy is not working because there is no real difference between the policies of the major parties’ (a major reason for 32%).

AUSTRALIA’S POPULATION SIZE

This year, we repeated a question from our 2010 Poll about what population target would be best for Australia in the next 40 years. Out of a range of population sizes, three-quarters (76%) of Australians choose a population target of 30, 40 or 50 million people. Around one in five (18%) think the population should be ‘around the current size of 23 million people’, 4 points lower than in 2010. Very few (4%) say it should be smaller than it is now.

What is not known or reflected in these results is the extent to which the Australian public comprehends current rates of population growth. While more than a third of all Australians favour a population of 40 million people or more, the projected Australian population in 2050 is somewhere between 38 million and 42 million people at around current rates of both natural increase (births and deaths) and migration.[16]

IMMIGRATION

One of the factors in Australia’s population size is the level of immigration. There have been numerous polls on attitudes to Australia’s immigration intake since the middle of last century which show public sentiment fluctuating considerably. After a high point in opposition immigration in the late 1980s, the 1990s and early 2000s saw significant reductions, while levels of opposition appear to have rebounded in the last few years.[17]

Drawing from a number of other surveys, we asked Australians in our 2014 Poll whether they thought the ‘total number of migrants coming to Australia each year is too high, too low, or about right’.18 The results were remarkably consistent with those of similar polls in recent years,19 with 37% of Australians saying the total number of migrants coming to Australia each year is too high, compared with only 14% saying it is too low. Almost half (47%) say the migrant intake is about right.

To those people who said the number of migrants each year is too high, we proposed a number of possible reasons for their views, and asked them whether each was a major reason, a minor reason or not a reason driving their views about the level of immigration.

For these Australians (just over a third of the adult population), concern about immigration is squarely focused on jobs. Of the five reasons we proposed, the most popular responses were ‘we should train our own skilled people, not take them from other countries’ (88% saying this was a major reason) and ‘having more people could make unemployment worse’ (87% saying major reason).

Slightly less important were concerns about the environment and overcrowded cities. Fewer Australians said that ‘Australia’s cities are already too crowded’ (72%), and fewer again that ‘the natural environment is stressed by the numbers we already have’ (68%).

Cultural diversity does not appear to be a primary driver of anti-immigration sentiment. Only 50% of those concerned about the level of immigration say that ‘we have too much cultural diversity already’ is a major reason for their concern about the number of migrants coming to Australia each year.

AUSTRALIA’S ALLIANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES

Australians’ support for the ANZUS alliance, signed in 1951, remains very strong. Support has slipped marginally this year, with the proportion saying the alliance is very or fairly important for Australia’s security down four points to 78%. Nevertheless, support for the alliance remains well above the levels seen in the mid-2000s during George W. Bush’s presidency, when support dropped as low as 63%.

RELIABILITY OF THE ANZUS SECURITY GUARANTEE

To gauge Australians’ sense of the continuing relevance and durability of the US alliance for our nation’s security, we revisited a question from our 2009 Poll and asked whether Australia will still be able to rely on the implicit security guarantee provided by the ANZUS Treaty in 5, 10 and 20 years’ time.

A very convincing 85% of Australians believe it likely that Australia will still be able to rely on the US security guarantee in five years’ time. Slightly fewer, 78%, think it likely to be reliable in 10 years’ time, and two thirds (66%) think this likely in 20 years’ time. There is a strong positive correlation between support for the alliance and confidence in the reliability of the alliance. Confidence in the alliance increases with age. Nearly half (44%) of Australians 60 years and over believe it is very likely that Australia will be able to rely on the alliance in 20 years’ time, compared with only 27% of those aged 18-29 years.

FEELINGS TOWARDS OTHER COUNTRIES

The Lowy Institute’s annual ‘feelings thermometer’ measures Australians’ feelings towards a range of other countries. It uses a thermometer scale where 100° is a very warm favourable feeling, and 0° is a very cold, unfavourable feeling. Twenty-one countries were included in this year’s thermometer, with New Zealand at 84° again the country most warmly regarded by Australians, as it has been on each occasion it has appeared on our thermometer.

North Korea maintains its place at the bottom of the scale, with Australians’ sentiments steadily cooling from an already cold 37° in 2010 to a decidedly frosty 29° this year, its lowest point in our polling history.

Cold, but slightly less cool than North Korea, were feelings towards Afghanistan and Iran at 38° and 39° respectively, consistent with previous years’ results. Feelings towards Papua New Guinea were lukewarm, registering below 60° for the second time since 2006.

The United States, our security alliance partner since 1951, continues to receive our high regard. Australians’ feelings towards the United States are warm at 71°, considerably higher than their low point of 60° in 2007 towards the end of the Bush presidency.

The most striking temperature shift this year was the six degree warming of sentiments towards China to a warmish 60°, its equal highest score in our history of tracking.

Feelings towards Fiji have also warmed four degrees to 68° since the last Lowy Institute Poll. In February 2014, part-way through our fieldwork, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced moves to normalise Australia’s relationship with Fiji after several years of sanctions and constraints on diplomatic and political relations.2[0]

On a lighter note, Australia’s competitors in the first round of the FIFA World Cup − Spain, Netherlands and Chile − were included in the thermometer for the first time this year. Feelings towards them are, for now, warm (69°, 72° and 62° respectively).

THE REPUBLIC AND AUSTRALIA’S INTERNATIONAL STANDING

We asked this year whether an Australian republic with an Australian head of state would strengthen, weaken or make no difference to Australia’s standing in the world. Fifty-five per cent of Australians say that becoming a republic would make no difference to Australia’s standing in the world. Around one in five (19%) say that it would strengthen Australia’s standing, and approximately the same number say it would weaken it.

AUSTRALIA’S INTERNATIONAL POLICY ACTIVITIES

Importance of Australia’s international agencies

In a policy environment characterised by frequent debate about the roles and importance of the various arms of government involved in Australia’s international relations – the Australian Defence Force, our diplomatic service, intelligence agencies and aid program – we sought to discover Australians’ views of the relative importance of these key arms of government. In response, most Australians (83%) say the Australian Defence Force is ‘very important’, well ahead of those who say the diplomatic service and intelligence agencies are very important (both 63%). Less than half (49%) ascribe the same level of importance to Australia’s aid program.

Aid and foreign policy

Shortly after gaining office, Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced his intention to absorb AusAID, Australia’s aid agency, into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), “enabling the aid and diplomatic arms of Australia’s international policy agenda to be more closely aligned”.[21]

In this context, we asked Australians this year whether ‘promoting Australia’s foreign policy objectives’ or ‘helping reduce poverty in poor countries’ was the most important objective of Australia’s overseas aid program. A large majority of Australians (75%) say ‘helping reduce poverty in poor countries’ is the most important objective. Few Australians (20%) identify ‘promoting Australia’s foreign policy objectives’ as the most important objective of the program.

Australia’s consular service

A number of high-profile cases have raised awareness of the consular service which the Australian Government provides when Australians encounter difficulty overseas. DFAT has recently conducted a public consultation on the delivery of consular services in preparing a new consular strategy at the request of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop.[22]

Australians have high expectations of the consular assistance they should receive from government, according to a new question in this year’s Poll. Presented with five statements about consular assistance, a significant majority (68%) agree that government should assist Australians in danger overseas regardless of whether they have abided by official travel warnings, and 63% say that ‘senior politicians should intervene to assist Australians in trouble overseas’. A majority (55%) rejects any obligation to reimburse government for the cost of consular services provided to them when travelling overseas. This high degree of reliance on government tends to undermine the views they express on the other propositions we posed. A significant majority (61%) say that ‘travellers should exhaust all other options for assistance before calling on the Australian Government for help’, and only a third (33%) agree that the government should protect Australians from the laws of other countries’. However, these sentiments do not sit neatly with their expectations of government assistance even when they have disregarded official travel warnings, and their reliance on political intervention when Australians encounter trouble overseas.

WORLD LEADERS

In a new question this year, we sought the views of Australian adults on some of the world’s political leaders, both men and women. We put forward a list of ten leaders, and asked whether Australians ‘admire them a lot, admire them a little or … don’t admire them’. The list comprised Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, UN Development Programme Administrator and former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, US President Barack Obama, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

The most admired leader is US President Barack Obama, followed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Three of the top five leaders admired most by the Australian public are women: Hillary Clinton, Aung San Suu Kyi and Angela Merkel. Prime Minister Tony Abbott rounds out the top five.

Among the least admired are the Indonesian and Chinese leaders. Very few Australians express a high level of admiration for Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (8% admire him ‘a lot’). Only 2% admire Chinese President Xi Jinping ‘a lot’, with a majority of Australians (64%) holding no view on him.

Men are more likely than women to admire Angela Merkel (49% of men admiring her overall, and 40% of women). Women are more likely to admire Hillary Clinton than men, though she is widely admired by both (86% of women and 76% of men admire her).

The two Australian leaders on our list provoke different responses. Significantly more Australians admire Prime Minister Tony Abbott ‘a lot’ (22%) compared with Bill Shorten (6%). But in terms of overall admiration (admired either ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’), the gap is narrower and more along the lines of the typical ‘two-party-preferred’ vote. Bill Shorten is admired by 46% of Australians, while Tony Abbott is admired by the majority (54%). On this measure, the Australian Prime Minister ranks third on our list overall, behind only Barack Obama (87%) and Hillary Clinton (81%).

What if there were more female political leaders in the world?

Most Australians (60%) think that it would make no difference if the world had more female political leaders. However, almost a third say ‘things would be better’ if the world had more female political leaders, while only 7% say ‘things would be worse’.

The notion that having more females in leadership roles might make the world a more just, peaceful or prosperous place was rejected by most Australians participating in this Poll. Less than half of Australians agreed the world would be more just (42%). Even fewer Australians agreed that ‘the world would be more peaceful’ (38%). Less than a third (31%) agreed ‘the world would be more prosperous’.