SSAA Victoria regularly commissions opinion polling, focus groups and other research on issues that matter to our members. That is a normal and responsible practice for a large, member-based organisation seeking to represent its stakeholders effectively and in good faith.
We are not opposed to polling.
What concerns us is polling conducted in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy, using broad and leading questions, and then presented as settled public consensus. That is not a reliable way to inform policy and it risks distorting it.
The Age today published an article under the headline:
“No restriction is too extreme: Australians unite in backing gun reform.”
The polling on which that claim rests surveyed 1,010 people nationally and was conducted within days of the Bondi tragedy. At that point, Australians were understandably shocked, grieving and seeking reassurance. Polling conducted in such circumstances does not capture considered, durable public opinion; it captures emotional reaction.
This is not a controversial proposition. Decades of research in psychology and survey science demonstrate that public attitudes measured immediately after traumatic events are highly volatile and heavily influenced by fear and proximity. For that reason, responsible polling methodology requires a cooling-off period before drawing conclusions about policy preferences.
The pollster’s own commentary in the article further underlines the problem. Jim Reed is quoted expressing a view that questions why people in cities “need a gun at all, let alone an armoury of firearms.” That is a legitimate (albeit totally uninformed and uncritical) personal opinion, but it is not a neutral starting point for designing survey questions intended to inform national policy.
One question cited in the article – “Even if it’s just a leaning, what is your preference for gun laws in Australia?” – illustrates the issue clearly. Asked so soon after a traumatic event, and particularly of a population directly affected by it, such a question invites an emotional response rather than a reasoned one.
There is also a structural consideration that should not be overlooked. More than one in five Australians live in Greater Sydney, the city most directly impacted by the attack. It is therefore likely that a significant proportion of respondents were drawn from a community experiencing acute distress, further skewing the results.
For politicians, the lesson should be clear.
Polling of this nature should be treated with extreme caution and ideally ignored altogether as a basis for policy. Major legislative decisions made in the emotional fog following tragedy are rarely well-calibrated and often require correction once passions cool and facts reassert themselves.
SSAA Victoria urges elected representatives of all persuasions to resist the temptation to outsource judgment to such polling, and to share our concern and, frankly, our disgust at attempts to use human suffering as a vehicle to manufacture political momentum.
Australians expect leadership, not reflex. This goes for all of our institutions of power – including the Fourth Estate. Calm analysis, accountability for real failures, and evidence-based policy must come before headlines.
