The convincing victory of the Liberal-National Party in yesterday’s election was more than a change for the sake of change. The Australian people have given clear endorsement to John Howard and the policies he articulated during the campaign.
Mr Howard is to be congratulated for marshalling a demoralised party after losing five elections in a row and suffering a leadership crisis in the first two years of the last term. In a little over a year he moved the party to the centre and held his nerve, refusing to be spooked by Paul Keating.
The result cannot reasonably be explained only as an expression of dissatisfaction with Mr Keating, though that was a significant part of the result.
The extent of the win means that Mr Howard, as in-coming Prime Minister, has a mandate for the major elements of his platform that he articulated in the campaign. In particular, the in-coming Coalition Government is entitled to expect that the partial sale of Telstra and reform to industrial relations go through the Senate. (Despite the large swing to the Coalition in the House of Representatives, it seems likely that it will not get a majority in the Senate.)
Conversely, it does not mean that Mr Howard and his Government can do what they like. They cannot go back on solemn promises made during the campaign. That could be a temptation, especially with such a large majority. But it should be resisted. The difference between the 1993 result and the 1996 result is instructive here. The Australian people in 1993 rejected a radical right, economic-rationalist agenda. The reason the swing was so great in 1996 was precisely because the Coalition put that agenda aside and put forward a more moderate campaign.
With such a large majority, the temptation among some in the Coalition might be to push for more economically dry and socially right policies. To do so would be to breach the contract with the electorate. For example, the Coalition should now see itself as committed to retaining Medicare, supporting native title and trimming, but not slashing, public spending, and not introducing a GST.
Mr Howard and his team will be well pleased with themselves and their large majority. However, the large majority may not be a blessing. In large majorities there is greater room for dissent and disruption. Further, on the Labor side, the decimation is not good for Australian democracy. Labor will be bereft of talent. Many of its younger ministers have lost their seats. Indeed, Labor people will be anxiously awaiting the late results in Western Australia to see if Kim Beazley will win his seat, so they have at least one strong, experienced MP to lead them. Further, the new Opposition will be that much weakened for the fear that it will be out of government for at least two terms.
A lot of Labor people will put the lion’s share of the blame on Mr Keating’s shoulders. But there was more to the anti-Labor sentiment than just anti-Keating sentiment. He was seen a arrogant by many, but he was also seen as a good leader by many others. Unfortunately, for Mr Keating he did not take his leadership far enough. Having succeeded in financial deregulation, the push into Asia and to some extent in pushing the republic, he failed in tax and industrial relations reform and these lead to economic failings, especially high foreign debt and high interest rates, that caused much of the voter swing to the Coalition. Mr Keating’s failings in these areas were Labor failings. Labor put its union constituency before the general good and last night it paid the price. The people opted for the Coalition’s economic policies, particularly more support for small business. They want jobs, not programs for jobs.
Mr Howard has a big task. To some extent he is saddled by his election promises, but that is the nature of democracy. He now has the delicate task of fulfilling them and at the same time improving the economy. Unfortunately for him the two are somewhat inconsistent. In order to move small business, the new government will need to be careful about public spending and will need to change the tax system.
As Mr Howard tends to these tasks, he will be certain of another lesson of yesterday’s results: that electorates can be very demanding and very unforgiving.