Prime Minister John Howard thinks that the conditions simply do not exist for a change of government because the economy is going so well and there is no demonstrable incompetence on the part of the government.
Health Minister Tony Abbott thinks that it is more likely the polls will change rather than the Government change.
Sure, changes of government have not been common in Australia since World War II. What has prompted them? The economy, stupid? Or something more.
There were changes in 1949, 1972, 1975, 1983 and 1996.
Bad economic conditions and incompetence (or at least the perception of it) have been significant in vote changes, particularly in 1975 (and in 1961 when the Opposition won the popular vote but did not get enough seats to win government).
The economy and competence for a long time have gone hand in hand. Voters have thought until more recently that if the economy is good the government must be competent and if the economy is bad it must be because of government incompetence. But recent polling now suggests that a significant majority of voters realise that economic conditions in Australia are not determined by government action. International conditions, corporate behaviour and other factors can improve or hurt the economy beyond the control of government.
Indeed, it shows just how behind the times Howard is when he says that the economy is almost the be-all and end-all of voters’ judgment on governments.
Only after a year of consistent bad polling is he belatedly getting the message that voters want something beyond the economy. And they make judgments about governments and oppositions based upon more than economic conditions.
Too often the mantra comes out that governments lose office, oppositions do not win it. But so often that is not the case, as present conditions are showing. True, sometimes a government is so bad that an opposition has an easy run – 1996 is an example. But even in those conditions an Opposition has to be ready or it will not take government. Labor under Mark Latham in 2004 is an example.
So what things other than the economy contributed to the changes of government since World War II.
Vision by the Opposition has been critical.
In 1949, Robert Menzies put a vision to Australians. It was based upon an end to government restrictions and controls, particularly post-war rationing, which had gone on long after the requirements of the war. He put a vision of a society in which individuals could get on with determining their own future.
In 1972, Gough Whitlam put a vision. He wanted to update Australia, and Australians agreed. He promised equality of opportunity in education, contact with Asia, an end to conscription, fairness and more resources to Indigenous people, and a national direction in infrastructure.
Mendacity, hubris and arrogance have been critical.
In 1975, Labor under Whitlam lost not only because of economic questions, but because voters thought they had been misled over the loans affair and because they rejected the Gough Imperium.
In 1996, the recession was over. Economic conditions were less important in voters’ minds than the mendacity and hubris from the Government surrounding them: “bringing home the bacon” and “the recession we had to have”. As was the arrogance of using taxpayers’ money on government advertising which was little more than Labor propaganda; more advisors; favours to special interests; appointments of mates to supposedly independent boards, government authorities and diplomatic posts and so on.
The feeling of a time for a new model has been significant.
In 1983, the drought and high interest rates had hurt people. But of more significance in 1983 were image, emotion and campaigning. Bob Hawke outshone Malcolm Fraser. The drover’s dog would not necessarily have beaten Fraser. People were tired of the old model and the new model looked better.
We now come to 2007. The economy is in good shape. But economic understanding is greater all round. Management of it is now understood by both major parties. Moreover, the thing that governments can really mess up – control of interest rates – is now safely in the hands of the Reserve Bank. So it is not just the economy, stupid.
But all these other government-changing factors are in place. On climate change, education and health, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd is more like Menzies in 1949 and Whitlam in 1972 whereas Howard looks more like 1972 Prime Minister Billy McMahon. On hubris, mendacity and arrogance, Howard – burdened by children overboard, weapons of mass destruction, the never-ever GST, non-core promises, massive government advertising, corrosive government secrecy, an intimidated Public Service, and a multitude of appointed mates — is more like Whitlam in 1975 and Keating in 1996. We leave aside the now-exposed cruel and costly actions against refugees and the over-reaction to terrorism.
On image, marketing and time for the new model, Howard is more like Fraser and Rudd more like Hawke. Howard is now the cathode ray tube of Australian politics in an era of high-definition flat screen television with high-speed internet.
Of course, as the previous examples show, it does not mean that a change of government this year will lead us to a permanent land of milk and honey.
If Rudd were clever he would try to save himself from himself by putting into force very early measures (some of which he has promised) to prevent the mis-spending of money on government propaganda, government secrecy, the appointment of mates, and intimidation of the Public Service. He might even start at the top with a more consultative process for the appointment of the Governor-General.
Government is more than the economy and aspiration more than the hip-pocket nerve. Previous changes of government have shown that voters can be inspired as much by hope as fear.