Crime and public safety are usually the domain of state politics. But the Coalition tried to elevate them as key issues for voters in the recent federal election.
Authors
- Chloe Keel
Lecturer in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University
- Kai Lin
Lecturer in Criminology, School of International Studies and Education, University of Technology Sydney
- Murray Lee
Professor of Criminology, University of Sydney
Claiming crime had been "allowed to fester" under Labor, the opposition promised a A$750 million Operation Safer Communities plan, which included police strike teams targeting drugs, a national child sex offender register, and more money for Neighbourhood Watch.
A Coalition government would also have given grants to community groups to install public lighting, bollards and CCTV cameras.
But in the end, crime did not appear to be a deciding factor in the election, which was easily won by Labor.
What does that tell us about leveraging public fear - either existing crime fears and general anxieties, or latent concerns that can be triggered - for political gain in Australia? Can it be a successful strategy?
Stoking anxiety
In culturally diverse countries, such as Australia and the United States, law and order rhetoric sometimes calls for supporting aggressive crime policies at the expense of racial and ethnic minorities, many of whom are immigrants.
These policies can be effective in stoking public fear to win votes. US President Donald Trump's exhortations on immigration and crime were a significant part of his election campaigns in 2016 and 2024 .
However, what experts call " protective factors ", such as strong communities and social cohesion, are important. They can reduce the influence of political narratives that try to define crime in narrowly punitive or racialised terms.
Australia is not America
Our peer-reviewed research, which will be published in the Journal of Criminology , investigated how public concerns about crime and safety in Australia and the US were associated with demographic factors that evolved over time. The study drew on data from the World Values Survey and indicated key differences in what makes Australians and Americans feel unsafe.
We have found that in Australia in 2018, supporters of left-leaning parties (Labor/Green) reported feeling significantly safer than other voters. However, this gap disappeared when researchers took into account attitudes that blame crime problems on immigrants. This suggests immigrant-blaming in Australia can drive feelings of community fear and insecurity.
The World Values Survey uncovered a different pattern in the US.
Between 2011 and 2017, Republican voters reported feeling safer than other Americans - the opposite of Australia's trend. The political divide in the US couldn't be explained by immigrant-blaming attitudes. Rather, it was attributed to the "self-isolation" of American conservatives in more culturally homogeneous communities.
Our study indicated that while immigration continued to influence safety perceptions in the US, it appeared to operate through different mechanisms than in Australia. Racial and ethnic minorities reported greater fear as the 2010s unfolded.
Social connectedness also plays differently in each country. In Australia, trust in others and confidence in public institutions consistently influences safety perceptions. In the US, these factors have little impact.
Social scientists have observed that in modern societies, responsibility for personal safety has increasingly shifted from the government to individuals. This trend is strong in the US, where market-focused, neoliberal economic and social policies dominate policies.
By contrast, European research suggests stronger social welfare systems can reduce safety concerns by addressing underlying economic anxieties. Australia's more robust social support appears to foster greater feelings of safety.
Our research indicates social cohesion further helps reduce fear.
Crime fears are not a vote winner
Electoral strategies that seek to leverage public insecurities need to be understood in the context of these fear-mitigating factors. Media diversity can also counter fear-based messaging.
In the 2018 Victorian election, crime became a prominent political issue through racialised commentary targeting " African gangs ". However, it failed to gain decisive political traction.
Research found fear of crime was relatively rare in Victoria. Media reports of crime and comments by political leaders were distant from their own experiences
With more diverse news sources and online platforms, political actors can no longer promote narratives unopposed. Fear-based messaging can backfire, especially when it overreaches.
Outdated strategy
Perceptions of crime are often shaped by a combination of actual crime rates and broader anxieties about social change, cultural difference, and uncertainty. This is frequently expressed as unease about the increasing presence of culturally diverse groups.
While the coalition's pivot to law-and-order rhetoric represented a familiar strategy, Labor positioned itself as the party of unity. This was underscored by Foreign Minister Penny Wong's declaration after Labor won the election, in which she acknowledged
[…] the power in our 26 million people from more than 300 ancestries […] from the oldest continuing civilisation on the planet and I acknowledge the traditional owners. Friends, we love this country.
While harnessing fears of crime and cultural diversity was not effective in this election cycle, this is not the end of law and order politics. But the unique characteristics of this election appear to have rendered the formula less potent.
Trump's threat to democracy and the constitutional rule of law in the US may have fostered a sense of solidarity and social cohesion among Australian voters. Our research suggests this helped to mitigate fears about crime.
The temptation to capitalise on law and order may continue to appeal to politicians. But in Australia, at least, there is no guarantee it will work.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
