Support for the Australian Greens. Bruce Tranter University of Tasmania

Support for the Australian Greens Bruce Tranter University of Tasmania 5265 words Contact Associate Professor Bruce Tranter, Sociology and Social Work, Private Bag 17, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia Phone: +61 3 6226 2362 Fax: + 61 3 6226 2279 Email: Bruce.Tranter@utas.edu.au

Support for the Australian Greens The environmental movement in Australia has enjoyed major campaign success over the past three decades, particularly in the preservation of native forests and wild rivers. The movement spawned a successful Green party that now holds the balance of power in the Senate following the 2010 Australian federal election, while the Labor government clings to power through an alliance with one Green and three independent members. The Australian Greens are an example of a successful minor party that has endured as the environmental movement in Australia has matured and undergone routinisation. While current major party leaders are only mildly enthusiastic in their commitment to act upon human induced climate change, the Greens ensure that environmental issues are in the forefront of Australian politics. In this paper I examine Green voting in Australian federal elections between 1990 and 2010 via multivariate analyses of national election survey data. Holding constant social and political background, the Green vote in the Senate has increased over time. Politically knowledgeable voters tend to split their vote strategically, supporting Labor in the lower house and the Greens in the upper house. Further, the results suggest that voter perceptions of major party leaders inform attitudes toward the risk of global warming as a threat. Leaders not only influence their own partisans but also shape attitudes toward global warming across party lines.

Introduction The environmental movement in Australia has enjoyed considerable success since the late 1970s, when the first forest protest action occurred at Terania Creek in northern New South Wales (Turvey 2006). This ground breaking action was followed closely by a series of Tasmanian forest protests, including a highly influential campaign that prevented the damming of the Wild Franklin River for a proposed hydro electric power scheme in Tasmania s South West in 1983 (Doyle 2001). Australia (i.e. Tasmania) witnessed the emergence of the first, albeit electorally unsuccessful environmental political party in the United Tasmania Group formed in 1972 (Papadakis 1998:172). Greens were elected to the federal upper house initially in Western Australia with Jo Valentine, originally elected to the Senate for the Nuclear Disarmament Party in 1984 who later became a Green. Two Green Senators followed from Western Australia in 1992 and 1993 and in Tasmania in 1996 when current Greens leader Senator Bob Brown was elected. The Greens formed a national Green party - the Australian Greens - in 1992 and have enjoyed considerable electoral success in local, state and federal politics. Five Greens are currently in a power sharing arrangement with the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania, while on the federal level, the Australian Greens hold 1 seat in the House of Representatives and 9 seats (along with the balance of power) in the 76 seat Senate following the 2010 federal elections (Green 2011). The Australian Greens are currently supported by approximately 13% of Australian voters according to a recent opinion poll (Newspoll 2011). In this paper I analyse national survey data from the Australian Election Study (AES) series to examine support for the Greens in the Australian upper house, the Senate, to show how voting behaviour is socially and politically circumscribed and how support for the Greens increased substantially over the last 20 years. The influence of major party leaders on Green voting is demonstrated through multivariate analyse of nationally representative survey data, while politically knowledgeable Australians are found to split their voting choice strategically between the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in the House of Representatives and Australian Greens in the Senate. Social Background of Environmental Issue Support in Australia Concern over environmental issues has been explained in terms of value priorities, age and generational differences, gender, education, place and social class (e.g., McAllister and

Studlar 1999; Tranter 1996; Inglehart 1990). For Inglehart (1997), citizens of advanced industrialised countries born after World War II are more likely to hold postmaterial values, prioritise free speech and seek greater say in political decision making. Materialists on the other hand, give precedence to economic and security issues. Postmaterialists are more likely than materialists to be concerned about environmental issues, join environmental groups, participate in protest actions and vote for Green political parties (Tranter 2010, 1999; Tranter and Western 2003; Inglehart 1997, 1990; Crook and Pakulski, 1995; Papadakis 1993; Müller- Rommel 1990). According to Inglehart (1990; Inglehart and Welzel 2005), postmaterialists emphasise environmental protection, with those who grew up during the post war period and subsequent generations much more likely to be concerned about the environment than older generations. A similar pattern is extant in Australia with postmaterialists overrepresented among environmental groups, environmental protesters and green voters (Pakulski and Tranter 2004; Tranter 1996), although generational based differences in value orientations are minimal in Australia (Tranter and Western 2003). Women tend to play more prominent roles in grass-roots mobilisations (Rootes 2004: 617) and are more concerned than men about environmental issues (Zelezny et al. 2000: 444-45) and in Australia, women are more likely than men to participate in environmental demonstrations, but not more likely to be members of environmental groups (Tranter 1996, 1997). Members of the new class allegedly support environmental causes to a greater extent than other classes (Kriesi 1989), although claims of new class support tends to mask the important influence of tertiary education (Rootes 1995: 227). Australian research suggests that the relationship between class location and environmental activism is weak, although tertiary education is a strong predictor of environmental activism and issue support (Tranter 2011: 2010). Green voting in Australia tends to be stronger among postmaterialists, the left and younger people (Tranter 2007; Western and Tranter 2001). Political Leaders, Partisans and Political Knowledge Identification with particular political parties (Party ID) influences attitudes on political issues and has a very strong association with voting behaviour (Miller 1976; Campbell et al. 1960). Party ID acts as a simplifying function assisting voters to align on political issues that may be complex or not of great interest to individuals, with political leaders providing cues that guide the political thought and action of the party identifier (Miller 1976: 23), as Gilens and Murakawa (2002: 21) claim, cue taking is a more common means of evaluating

political issues than substantive assessment of competing evidence and arguments. Party ID acts as a perceptual screen through which the individual tends to see what is favorable to his partisan orientation s Campbell et al. (1960: 133). While significant partisan dealignment has occurred (Dalton, 1996; Dalton et al. 1984), political partisanship persists as an important predictor of voting in many countries (Bartels, 2000; Bean, 1997; 1996). In the context of this research, cues provided by major party leaders, particularly in relation to the risks associated with global warming may at least partly structure public attitudes and voting intentions. For example, Zaller (1992: 266) maintains in relation to leader cues, the greater a person s level of habitual political awareness, the more likely she is to receive these messages. Also, the greater a person s level of awareness, the more likely she is able, under certain circumstances, to resist information that is inconsistent with her basic values or partisanship. In their examination of Swiss referendum data, Sciarini, Bornstein and Lanz (2007) demonstrated how a divided elite has a polarising effect on voting. When party leaders are divided, similar divisions are likely to be reflected among partisans. In relation to environmental issues, Dunlap and McCright (2008: 28) found a substantial gap between major party supporters in the United States over global warming, with skepticism among Republican and conservative elites and leading conservative media figures. Knowledge of political processes and facts has an influence upon voting behaviour in Australia (Tranter 2007). Jennings (1996: 229) claims that there are three types of factual political knowledge, textbook facts that refer to the mechanics of government and politics ; ongoing events and political developments, and historical facts, while Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996: 10) define political knowledge as the range of factual information about politics that is stored in the long-term memory. This definition distinguishes political knowledge from attitudes, values, beliefs and opinions and from logic, reasoning, discourse, participation and other important components of democratic citizenship (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996, 10 11). The politically informed are allegedly more likely to identify their true interests and connect these with their political attitudes and to link their attitudes with their participation so that their participation serves their interests (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996: 219). Those who score highly on scales measuring knowledge of politics are more likely than others to split their vote between the Australian Labor Party in the House of Representatives

and a Left-leaning, postmaterialist...minor party in the Senate such as the Australian Democrats and the Greens (Tranter 2007: 84). Prior to the rise of the Australian Greens, the Australian Democrats were a progressive minor party that held several Senate seats. Analyses of 1996 Australian Election Study data suggests that knowledgeable voters tended to vote Labor in the House and Democrat in the Senate prior to the emergence of the Greens in the upper house (Tranter 2007: 85). Major party leaders also influence environmental concerns such as attitudes toward the perceived risk of global warming in a way that cross-cut voters party allegiances (Tranter 2011:92). In this paper I examine data from the Australian Election Study (AES) surveys to demonstrate the impact of social and political background and the influence of political leaders upon voting behaviour. Specifically, I consider how the leaders of the major Australia political parties influence voting for the Greens in the proportionately representative Australian Senate. The influence of political knowledge upon strategic voting for the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in the House of Representatives and for the Australian Greens in the Senate is I also considered. Data and Method The data analysed here are from the Australian Election Studies (AES) series. The AES surveys are nationally representative with samples of approximately 2,000 cases (see McAllister et al 2011). The AES surveys employ systematic samples drawn from the federal electoral roll prior to each federal election with data from 1990 to 2010 i presented to model voting for the Greens in Australian Senate (1 = Greens; 0 = other parties). The results of binary logistic regression analyses are shown below, with odds ratios presented to facilitate the interpretation of the regression estimates. In order to consider instances of strategic voting, dependent variables were also developed to measure those who split their vote, choosing the ALP in the lower house (i.e. House of Representatives) and the Australian Greens in the upper house (i.e. the Senate) as opposed to Labor in both houses or the coalition parties in both houses (see Tranter 2007). Independent variables include sex (men), age (in years), tertiary degree (1/0), professional occupation (1/0), location in a city of over 500 people (1/0); postmaterial values scale (materialists 1; mixed 2; postmaterialists 3), ii no religious affiliations (1/0) and political knowledge scales (0 6). The knowledge scales are additive scales constructed by summing

the correct answers to a series of quiz questions. These quiz questions were not included in all AES, nor were the questions identical across the surveys. I therefore limit my analyses to the 2007 and 2010 surveys when examining associations between political knowledge and Green voting. iii Leader evaluation scales were derived from the question: Using a scale from 0 to 10, please show how much you like or dislike the party leaders if you don't know much about them, you should give them a rating of 5. iv An attitudinal variable was added to the regression models to measure how concern over the risk of global warming structured voting: Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to your way of life in your lifetime? measure. v The global warming question was only included in the 2007 and 2010 AES. Binary logistic regression analyses are conducted to model voting dependent variables with each election survey and poled data (Tables 2 to 4), with ordinary least squares regression used for analysis of the global warming question (Table 5). Odd ratios are presented for the logistic regression tables. Odds ratios larger than 1 indicate positive associations with relevant dependent variables, with negative associations represented by odds ratios of magnitude smaller than 1. Missing data are replaced by coding to the midpoint for the postmaterial scale (i.e. mixed values), with the mean for each leader scale and to the excluded categories for dummy (1/0) independent variables. Results The analyses begin with voting trends for the Greens in the Australian Senate. The results in Table 1 suggest that following the initial increase in the proportion of people voting Green from 1990 to 1996 there has been relatively little change. In 1996 almost half of all Green supporters voted consistently for the Greens in both houses of parliament. However, there have been some significant shifts in voting among those who favour other parties in the lower house. The initial support of Australian Democrat voters in the House who voted Green in the Senate drops dramatically from 33% in 1990 to around 10% in 1996 then peters out as the Democrats lost electoral support. More interesting are the shifts among major party voters in the House. The Green Senate vote among Coalition House voters rose from 11% in 1990 to 19% in 1996, but then declined. However, the proportion of Labor voters in the House who vote Green in the Senate increased over time - particularly from 2004 onwards has risen to be virtually identical to those voting consistently for the Greens in both the House and Senate.

Table 1: Voting for Australian Greens in the House of Representatives and Senate (per cent) 1990 1996 2001 2004 2007 2010 Voting Australian Greens in the Senate 1.9 2.7 6.8 11.3 13.5 14.8 Split Voting Green in House, Green in Senate 38.9 48.8 52.7 51.6 47.0 48.0 Labor in House, Green in Senate 16.7 20.9 24.4 41.2 47.0 45.0 Coalition in House, Green in Senate 11.1 20.9 13.0 6.7 6.1 7.0 Democrat in House, Green in Senate 33.3 9.3 9.9 0.5 - - Total 100 99.9 100 100 100.1 100 N voting Green in Senate (39) (48) (137) (200) (253) (328) N Full Survey (2037) (1797) (2010) (1769) (1873) (2214) Source: Australian Election Studies (1990 2010). In Table 2, the dependent variable in these binary logistic regression analyses contrasts those who vote Green in the Senate with voters for the major parties or any other party. The usual suspects are apparent among support for the Greens in the multivariate models, with younger people, the tertiary educated, professionals and those not affiliated with any religious denomination very likely to vote Green in the Senate rather than for other parties. The self identified middle class, postmaterialists and the ideological left are also likely to vote Green. However, positively evaluating Labor leaders - and to a far greater extent, Coalition party leaders - reduces the likelihood of Green voting. Finally, the odds ratios for the dummy variables representing successive AES surveys indicate that Green Senate voting has increased substantially over time. Importantly, as the estimates in Table 2 are pooled, they comprise over 13,000 respondents in total, of which more than 1,000 are Greens voters, so these are robust estimates.

Table 2: Green Voting in the Australian Senate (odds ratios) Men (=1) 0.96 Age (years) 0.987*** Degree (=1) 1.73*** Professional (1) 1.40*** Non religious (=1) 1.46*** Self assessed middle class (=1) 1.30*** Postmaterial (scale 1-3) 1.98*** Left-right (scale 0-10) 0.78*** Labor leaders scale (0-10) 0.96** Coalition leaders scale (0-10) 0.84*** Election survey year 1990 0.28*** 1996 0.36*** 2001 1 2004 1.71*** 2007 2.26*** 2010 2.28*** Nagelkerke R 2.31 N (11,700) * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Source: Australian Election Studies (1996 2010). In Table 3 the analysis shifts to consider those who split their voting between the House of Representatives and the Senate using data from the 2007 and 2010 AES, as these data also contains variables that measure the perceived risk of global warming and consistent measures of political knowledge. The first column of Table 3 models Greens voting in the Senate compared to all other parties. The remaining columns model those who split their vote between the houses. In the second column those who vote Labor in the House and Green in the Senate are compared to those voting Green in both houses; the third contrasts Labor House/Green Senate with Labor in both houses; the fourth, Labor House/Green Senate with Coalition voting in both houses.

The first column shows similar results to the previous table even though additional variables are included in this model. Notably, large city dwellers are more likely to vote for the Greens than those living elsewhere (this variable was not included in all AES so was omitted from the analyses in Table 2). In these analyses, a scale measuring knowledge of political facts was added, as was the attitudinal variable tapping the perceived risks associated with global warming. Knowledge has a weak but significant impact upon voting for the Greens in the Australian Senate, as opposed to other parties. It also increases the likelihood of strategic voting for other parties in the lower house and the Greens in the Senate, increasing in magnitude compared to those who vote Labor in both houses or Coalition in both houses. The perceived risk of global warming also has an important impact upon Green voting, particularly for Labor/Green versus Coalition voting in both houses. While the influence of major party leaders generally reduces the likelihood of Green voting, but there are important exceptions. Positive evaluations of the Labor leader increase the likelihood of Labor/Green versus Green/Green voting, and Labor/Green versus Coalition/Coalition voting. These results suggest - in combination with earlier research findings (Tranter 2007) -that many Australians are voting strategically for the Greens in the Senate. For example, in 2010, 17% of Labor voters in the House of Representative, voted for the Greens in the Senate. The proportion of Labor House voters favouring the Greens in the Senate has also increased over time, eroding support for Labor in the Senate, and crucially, undermining the potential for Labor to control both houses of parliament in its own right. Given the clear importance of the perceived risk of global warming as a predictor of Green voting, I finally consider the social background of attitudes toward global warming in Table 4. The dependent variable is analysed with ordinary least squares regression and scored to range from 0 to 100, where 0 represents no threat and 100 a serious threat. While there are some minimal differences between the 2007 and 2010 election surveys, the pooled estimates in the third column of results suggest a similar support base to the Green party itself, as postmaterialists, the left, younger people and the tertiary educated are highly concerned about the risks associated with global warming. Positive evaluations of Labor leaders are associated with increased risk perception, while coalition leaders seem to have the opposite, negative influence, reflecting the partisan divide over action on climate change. Further, men are less likely than women to see global warming as a risk within their lifetime, controlling

for other independent variables, while political knowledge is associated negatively with concern over the risk of global warming. Table 3: Green voting in the Senate (odds ratios) a. Grn vs b. Lab/Grn vs c. Lab/Grn vs d. Lab/Grn vs other party Green both Lab both Coal both Men 0.96 0.80 0.76 1.14 Age 0.992* 1.001 0.996 0.974** Degree 1.57*** 0.75 1.24 0.72 Professional 1.41** 1.30 1.39 1.42 City 1.41** 1.40 1.71** 2.81*** Non-religious 1.32* 0.79 1.30 1.45 Middle class 1.21 0.60* 1.23 0.64 Postmat. scale 1.74*** 0.61** 1.47** 1.11 Left-right 0.79*** 1.19** 0.88** 0.65*** Leader scales Labor 0.95* 1.41*** 0.86*** 1.91*** Coalition 0.84*** 0.85*** 0.93* 0.47*** Polit. Knowledge 1.08* 1.18* 1.21*** 1.42*** Global Warming 3.26*** 0.68 2.07** 9.21*** Survey 2007 1 1 1 1 2010 1.22 0.91 1.08 1.11 Nagelkerke R 2.31.26.18.81 N (3746) (505) (1358) (1585) Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Estimates are Logistic Regression coefficients expressed as odds ratios. Dependent variables: a. 1 = Green in Senate; 0 = Labor + Coalition + Other parties in Senate. b. 1 = Labor in House, Green in Senate; 0 = Green in both houses. c. 1 = Labor in House, Green in Senate; 0 = Labor in both houses. d. 1 = Labor in House, Green in Senate; 0 = Coalition in both houses. Source: Australian Election Studies (2007 2010)

Table 4: Perceived Risk of Global Warming (OLS) 2007 2010 All Intercept 78.9 65.6 78.3 Men -5.0** -4.3*** -4.5*** Age -0.39*** -0.15*** -0.25*** Degree 2.6 5.1** 4.0** Professional 1.2 3.5 2.4 City 3.6-0.4 1.5 No Religion -0.8-2.3-1.9 Middle Class -1.2 1.5 0.2 Postmaterial Values 4.8** 4.1*** 4.3*** Left-right -0.7-2.3*** -1.6*** Labor leader 2.0*** 1.5*** 1.7** Coalition leader -1.6*** -0.9*** -1.3*** Political Knowledge -1.0-1.6*** -1.3*** Survey 2007 - - 0 2010 - - -12.5*** R 2.13.17.17 N (1,716) (2,030) (3,746) Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Source: Australian Election Studies (2007 2010) Conclusions While opinion polls suggest that the proportion of Australians concerned about the risk of global warming has decreased over time, vi it remains an important issue for many Australians. Nevertheless, public support for action on climate change tends to vary according to social background and political affiliation (Tranter 2011). This research suggests that social background factors, such as age (or perhaps generation ), education, political orientations (i.e. left-right position) and Postmaterial value orientations have a robust impact upon voting behaviour for the third most successful party in the Australian Senate, the Australian Greens.

Dunlap and McCright (2008) have shown that political partisanship is associated with divergent views on climate change in the USA. In earlier research I have demonstrated the influence of divided political elites on party supporters in Australia, with political leaders providing cues that shape supporters attitudes on environmental issues such as global warming (Tranter 2011). In this paper I show that major party leaders also influence voting for the Australian Greens. In particular, the leaders of the conservative Liberal and National party coalition influence Greens voting, with those holding positive views of coalition leaders less likely to vote for the Greens over time. This research extends my earlier findings on attitudes toward climate change (Tranter 2011) to demonstrate that political leaders have a powerful impact upon environmental voting. Additionally, knowledge of political facts and processes is associated with a tendency among voters for strategic voting, of splitting their voting choice between the Australian Labor Party in the lower house and the Australian Greens in the upper house. Read alongside their electoral history and standing in the opinion polls, the social and political background results here indicate the Australian Greens are likely to remain a minority party for the foreseeable future, yet one with a stable and enduring support base. As a party representing the interests of the left, and tertiary educated postmaterialists the Greens should remain as a longer lasting force in the Australian polity than their former rivals, the centrist Australian Democrats. The close association between some Labor and Green voters, and the fact that many Green supporters are former Labor supporters, has important implications. There is a strong possibility that Labor and the Greens will be forced to move toward more formalised agreements, to join forces in forthcoming federal elections in order to tackle the rising popularity of the conservative Liberal and National coalition parties. However unpalatable such arrangements would be for many supporters of both parties, these increasingly familiar bedfellows may soon need to consummate a political marriage of convenience if they are to achieve government in forthcoming federal elections.

References Bartels, L. 2000. Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952-1996 American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 35-50. Bean, C. 1997. Parties and Elections in B. Galligan, I. McAllister and J. Ravenhill (eds.) New Developments in Australian Politics, South Melbourne: Macmillan, pp. 102-24. Bean, C. 1996. Partisanship and Electoral Behaviour in Comparative Perspective in M. Sims (ed.) The Paradox of Parties, Sydney: Allen and Unwin, pp. 135-55. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W. and Stokes, D. 1960. The American Voter New York: Wiley and Sons. Crook, S. and Pakulski J. 1995. Shades of Green: Public Opinion on Environmental Issues in Australia Australian Journal of Political Science, 30: 39-55. Dalton, R. 1996. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced industrial Democracies, (second edition) Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers. Dalton, R., Flanagan, S. and Beck P. 1984. Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Delli Carpini, M. and Keeter, S. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Doyle, T. 2001. Green power: The environment movement in Australia, Sydney: UNSW Press. Dunlap, R. and McCright, A. 2008. A Widening Gap: Republican and Democratic Views on Climate Change Environment, Science and Policy 50(5): 26-35. Gilens, M. and Murakawa, N. 2002. Elite Cues and Political Decision Making in Delli- Carpini, M., Huddy, L. and Shapiro, R (eds.) Political Decision-Making, Deliberation and Participation, Oxford: JAI. Green, A. 2011. The Green Guide: Antony Green s Guide to the 2010 Federal Election (accessed 4/8/2011). http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/senate-results.htm Hanson, F. 2011. The Lowy Institute Poll 2011: Australian and the World, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy (accessed 4/8/2011) http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publication.asp?pid=1617 Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R., 1990. Values, ideology and Cognitive Mobilisation in New Social Movements in R. Dalton and M. Kuechler (eds.) Challenging the Political Order Cambridge, Polity Press: 43-66.

Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernisation, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Jennings, M.K. 1996. Political Knowledge over Time and across Generations Public Opinion Quarterly 60: 228 52. Kriesi, H. 1989. New Social Movements and the New Class in the Netherlands American Journal of Sociology 94(5): 1078-1116. McAllister, I., Bean, C., Peitsch, J., Gibson, R. (2011) Australian Election Study 2010, Canberra: Australian National University. McAllister, I. and Studlar, D. 1999. Green versus Brown: Explaining Environmental Commitment in Australia Social Science Quarterly 80(4): 775-92. Miller, W. 1976. The Cross-National Use of Party Identification as a Stimulus to Political Inquiry in I. Budge, I. Crewe and D. Farlie, Party Identification and Beyond, London: Wiley and Sons 21-31. Müller-Rommel, F. 1990. New Political Movements and New Politics Parties in Western Europe in R. Dalton and M. Kuechler eds. Challenging the Political Order: New Social and Political Movements in Western Democracies, New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 209-231. Newspoll 2011. Newspoll, The Australian, July 22-24, 2011 (accessed 4/8/2011) http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl Pakulski, J. and Tranter, B., 2004. Environmentalism and Social Differentiation: a paper in memory of Steve Crook, Journal of Sociology 40(3) 220-59 Papadakis, E. 1998. Historical dictionary of the Green movement, Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Papadakis, E. 1993. Politics and the Environment: the Australian Experience, Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Rootes, C. 2004. Environmental Movements in Snow, D., Soule, S. and Kriesi, H. (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rootes, C. 1995. A New Class? The Higher Educated and the New Politics in L. Maheu (ed.) Social Movements and Social Classes: the future of collective action, (London: Sage), pp. 220-235. Sciarini, P., Bornstein, N. and Lanz, B. 2007. The Determinants of Voting Choices on Environmental Issues: A Two-Level Analysis in The Dynamics of referendum campaigns: an international perspective, (de Vreese, C., ed.), New York : Palgrave Macmillan. Tranter, B. 2011. Political divisions over climate change and environmental issues in Australia Environmental Politics 20(1): 78-96.

Tranter, B. 2010. Environmental Activists and non-active environmentalists in Australia Environmental Politics 19(3): 413-429. Tranter, B. 2007. Political Knowledge and its Partisan Consequences Australian Journal of Political Science 42(1): 73-88. Tranter, B. 1999. Environmentalism in Australia: Elites and the Public Journal of Sociology 35(3): 331-350. Tranter, B., 1997. Environmentalism and Education in Australia Environmental Politics Summer 6(2): 123-143. Tranter, B., 1996. The Social Bases of Environmentalism in Australia Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, August 32(2): 61-84. Tranter, B. and Western, M. 2003. Postmaterial Values and Age: the Case of Australia Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(2): 239-257. Turvey, N. 2006. Terania Creek: Rainforest Wars, Carindale, Queensland: Glass House Books. Western, M. and Tranter, B. 2001. Postmaterialist and Economic Voting in Australia, 1990-1998 Australian Journal of Political Science 36(3): 439-458. Zaller, J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, New York: Cambridge University Press. Zelezny, L., Poh-Pheng, C., and Aldrich, C., 2000. New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 443 457.

i The 1993 AES did not include Australian Greens as a distinct category in voting questions, so the 1993 data are not able to be analysed here. ii The AES question was: Here is a list of four aims that different people would give priority. 1. Maintain order in the nation 2. Give people more say in important government decisions 3. Fight rising prices 4. Protect freedom of speech If you had to choose among these four aims, which would be your first choice? And which would be your second choice? Inglehart (1997) classifies combinations of options 2 and 4 as postmaterialists and options 1 and 3 as materialists. All other combinations are deemed mixed values. Postmaterialists are scored 3, mixed 2 and materialists 1. iii The questions used in scale construction in 2007 and 2010 were: For each of the following statements, please say whether it is true or false.: Australia became a federation in 1901 ; There are 75 members of the House of Representatives ; The Constitution can only be changed by the High Court ; Elections to the Senate are based on proportional representation ; No-one may stand for Federal parliament unless they pay a deposit ; The longest time allowed between Federal elections for the House of Representatives is four years. iv The 0-10 like variable compares voters views of political leaders over time. Separate questions included in each AES measure specific leader qualities (e.g. 2010 items asked if the leader was competent, compassionate, sensible, a strong leader, honest, knowledgeable, inspiring, trustworthy). Scales constructed from the multiple items correlate strongly with the single 0-10 scale, and as the multiple items do not appear in a consistent manner in all AES, for consistency the single item scales are analysed. v These scales were rescored to range between 0 and 1. The response categories varied for this question between surveys with 3 responses in 2007: Yes, will pose a threat = 100, No, will not pose a threat =0, Depends =50, and 4 responses in 2010: very serious threat =100, fairly serious =66, not very =33, not at all =0. vi The Lowy Poll question was: There is a controversy over what the countries of the world, including Australia, should do about the problem of global warming. I m going to read you three statements. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs. Support for the preceding statement decreased from 68% in 2006 to 60% in 2008; 48% in 2009; 46% in 2010 down to only 41% in July 2011. Alternatively, support for gradually responding by taking steps that are low in cost increased from 24% in 2006 to 40% in 2011 (Hanson 2011).