Prime Minister John Howard says that the election he has called for October 3 is about economic management. He points to the Coalition’s past performance in bringing federal spending under control and points to the future, saying his proposed tax system offers a better program for economic management than Labor’s plan.
That may be so, but the timing of this election is not about economic management, it is about the re-election of the Coalition Government. There was no valid reason for an early election. Rather Mr Howard appears to have made the judgment that his chance of re-election are better now than in March next year when the election is due, given the way international events are putting such strain on Australia’s economic performance. Whatever the merits of the Coalition’s tax package — and there are many — the timing of its delivery, the use of the resources of the Government to advertise it, and the calling of the election early have been a completely cynical exercise.
Australia should move to a fixed election date for three-year terms (to coincide with the Senate) as part of any constitutional change that might come with the centenary. It would make thing more predictable for business. The fact Mr Howard has called this election six months early points to mismanagement, not good management.
Mr Howard is right to say economic management is a central issue, but it should not be the only one. Governments do more that manage economies. Indeed, it might be said that governments have less influence in economic matters than they could have in social matters. The recent plummeting of the Australian dollar was not caused by government.
It is reasonable for Mr Howard to play up the importance of the Coalition’s strengths. It has done well to get the Budget deficit under control, which is a matter directly within government control. But it has not made a dint on unemployment in the past 2 and a half years, despite that being a major promise at the last election.
Outside the area of economics, the Government appears to have more minuses than pluses. Mr Howard got off to a good start showing leadership on the guns question after the Port Arthur massacre. The opportunity was there to continue the aim for, in Mr Howard’s words, a comfortable and relaxed lifestyle. Instead, the Government failed on several scores.
Mr Howard promised ministerial integrity and his Government got enmeshed in half a dozen cases where ministers failed to live up to the standards that Mr Howard had set. They were bungles of the Governments own making.
The Government then lost confidence of the indigenous community with its attack on ATSIC. More accountability was needed, but it could have been done with more sensitivity. The insensitivity was compounded by the failure to apologise over the stolen generations after the publication of the Human Rights Commission report.
The Government compromised with the Democrats on industrial relations to get some runs on the board, but when it attempted to apply its new law, it came gruesomely unstuck. The image of dogs on the wharves epitomises the failure. The Coalition’s business constituency remains disappointed that industrial relations remains a problem.
The promise of public-sector efficiency with only mild cuts to public-service numbers also failed. The cuts were too savage and the result was not efficiency, but in some instances, like the privatisation of the Commonwealth Employment Service, it was chaos. In other cases, contracting out showed not appreciable gain.
Mr Howard failed to deal early with the Hanson phenomenon. As a result, her position has been strengthened to the extent that a political party has been formed which may have a parliamentary presence for some time to come.
On nursing homes, the Government had a sensible objective: to get more money into nursing homes and to make those who could afford it pay more. It went to far. It said it would refuse to back down and then it backed down. It revealed the same pattern as with industrial relations. Some good policy objectives ruined by poor implementation.
On the non-economic success side, the Government can point to the constitutional convention and its native title law. The latter, though is a success in some people’s eyes only, and the former was made a success by people despite the Government, not because of it.
The part sale of Telstra has also been billed a success. That may be so for those who could afford shares. Those who did not might think their public asset was undersold.
Small wonder Mr Howard says this is an election about economic management. If it is about anything else, he does not look very good.
Mr Howard may well invite voters to look forward to his tax package. But many will look back to past performance as they consider for whom to vote over the next five weeks.
The danger for Mr Howard personally, is that if he highlights economics and gets back, much of the kudos might go to his Treasurer, who might then claim to be in a better position to get achievements in social and other fields that his present leader so manifestly has failed in.
Th tragedy for Australia, is that Labor does not look very promising, and its record in Government revealed a profligacy that the nation could not afford. Labor assumed by the size of the Coalition majority in 1996 that it would be a two-term government. So it was fairly relaxed about selling policies, even if some homework was being done behind the scenes. Labor promise to wind back the clock on industrial relations does not inspire confidence. Its pick-a-winner style of industry policy could result in expensive mistakes. At least its tax package did not fritter away the surplus, unlike the Government, which must now be coming under increasing suspicion on the economic front.
One can only hope that standards improve over the next five weeks, or many voters will despair.