On its face, Labor was routed at the weekend and the Coalition victorious on a huge scale. But appearances can be deceptive.
Aside from the ministerial blood all over the floor, the outward appearance is as follows: Labor won 81 seats in 1993. On Saturday it won just 48. The Coalition went from 65 in 1993 to 95.
So Labor, a nominally leftist party, lost 40 per cent of its seats. On its face, a debacle. The Coalition, of two conservative parties, did 50 per cent better than in 1993.
But what is the real result as an expression of the will of the Australian people.
In 1993, Labor got 44.9 per cent of the primary vote and the Coalition got 44.3 The rest went to minor parties. After distribution of preferences the result was 51.4 per cent Labor to 48.6 per cent to the Coalition. In 1996, after preferences, Labor got 46 and the Coalition got 54. That is not an enormous swing of opinion.
Bear in mind, the Coalition got just over 49 per cent of first preferences. Under the New Zealand or European proportional system, Mr Howard would now be scratching around to secure support from independents, Democrats, Greens or sundry single-issue parties to get a majority, rather than basking in the largest conservative majority for 20 years, and the third-largest since federation.
Saturday night’s result is not a huge swing to the right. The truth is that Mr Howard commanded and cajoled the Coalition to the centre, and the Australian people rewarded him. Voters were just as unenthusiastic about Labor and Mr Keating in 1993 as in 1996. The difference, though, was the Coalition in 1996 was not led by an ideologically committed economic rationalist who wanted to slash and burn public spending, redesign the tax system and raze the industrial-relations system, as it was in 1993.
After five defeats and two further years of leadership turmoil, the Coalition finally turned to Mr Howard a year ago and learnt that power in Australia is won by capturing the middle ground. The moral high ground is of no moment.
Despite the huge change in seats and representation in the Parliament, the election does not reveal a lurch to the right. It does not reflect a vast change of opinion.
Only a small percentage changed their vote. And what did they change it to? A Coalition that committed itself to the Medicare national insurance scheme; to native title; to a range of Labor’s social welfare payments, particularly to the family; to modest, not radical, change in industrial relations; to increased spending on the environment; to virtually no tax change.
Given that the radical-right Coalition was so comprehensively rejected in 1993 and the reformed moderate-centre Coalition of the centre was more warmly embraced in 1996, the message is clear. Australians like the politically central ground. And they don’t much care which party occupies it … with a couple of provisos. They like competent economic administration; they don’t like special favours for mates and they don’t like arrogant leaders.
The difference between the 1993 and 1996 results should present a message for Mr Howard. Mr Howard will return to Canberra with a huge majority, but one that will contain a lot a excess baggage. That baggage comes in the form of some fairly mediocre party hacks and ideologues who were put up in supposedly safe Labor seats and, who to their own surprise, won.
These will be urging a swing to the right. They will point to the large majority as the source of legitimacy for greater conservatism because the Coalition is a conservative force. It would be the wrong political lesson. Further, the National Party will be urging more conservative social policies. It is a odd Coalition. The National Party, economically, is an agrarian socialist party which likes a lot of government interference to help rural industry. Socially it is almost Christian right. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, is free-trade and contains many socially small-l liberals.
Mr Howard may find his majority too big. Too many backbenchers will have nothing to do but make trouble.
Mr Howard has other problems. He has made a number of election promises which will require extra or at least existing levels of public spending. Yet he must reduce public spending if he is to deliver his promised better economic outcome to small business which in turn has to improve employment. In short, he has inconsistent promises to fulfil.
And despite his large majority, the Coalition does not control the Senate. The Coalition captured one Senate seat, but is still a seat short of a majority even adding a conservative independent. It will need Democrat or Green support for legislative change.
I would not be surprised if the Senate knocks back some key reforms in industrial relations and the partial privatisation of Telstra.
If that happens Mr Howard could easily seek a double dissolution, an election for both Houses in a year or 18 months’ time. It would be a way of trading in some of the annoying excess in the House of Representatives for precious majority in the Senate. Risky, but attainable, provided he does not stray too far from the middle ground.