Small target election strategies - who has a mandate in this election?
There have been suggestions that federal Labor’s current low target approach in not releasing policies prior to the election and abandoning its 2019 controversial policies is copying Howard’s 1996 election strategy seen as pivotal key to the Coalition’s landslide win.
Such a view misconstrues accepted political tactics, overlooks very different political contexts, and fails to distinguish the differences in the stature and reputation between Howard and the current opposition leader Anthony Albanese.
Undermining the small target argument about Howard and what distinguishes him from Albanese is that Howard in government and opposition was closely associated with major policy initiatives and reforms such as: financial deregulation, privatisation, budget restraint, tariff reductions and industrial relations reform. Howard never resiled from these, especially industrial relations reform, in the run-up to the 1996 election. He was a known quantity.
As well, Howard, while lacking the charisma of Hawke or the passionate aggression of Keating, was regarded as an outstanding debater, able to cope under pressure and to match his opponents in parliament and on the hustings.
By contrast, Albanese, although in parliament since 1996 and holding some senior ministerial posts, has never been seen as a major player articulating or associated with any ground-breaking policies. Also, being from the left, his views hardly coincide with former Labor successes like the Hawke-Keating government or even with Whitlam. Labor’s low target approach appears to have been a more deliberate strategy of obfuscation for fear of how they and their leader might be perceived by voters than ever occurred with Howard.
And let us not forget the political context of Howard’s return to the leadership in January 1995 a year ahead of an expected election. He needed time before launching new policies to mend personal and policy fences within the Coalition, to reassert his authority in the party and re-engage with the Australian electorate. By contrast, Albanese has been in the leadership role uninterrupted since the May 2019 election. He has had time to formulate his policies and let the Australian people known what he and his party now represent, but we hardly know him.
Even during 1995 while preparing policies for the election, Howard was not idle. He made three major ‘headland’ speeches on the role of government, fair Australia and national identity. While not detailed policy statements, these gave clear indications of Howard’s thinking, and established key principles for future policies.
In not releasing policies too early Howard was not avoiding political engagement but like opposition leaders before him, just practising good politics and being unwilling to oblige the government with an easy target to attack.
After all, Howard had seen how the Coalition’s 600page Fightback! complex policy package with its goods and services tax released 15 months before the 1993 election had given the Keating government time to analyse, distort, and attack it, resulting in Labor’s fifth consecutive electoral victory.
Howard understood, that keeping a focus on the government’s flaws is the first duty of any opposition and too early a release of policies dissipates that approach.
Certainly, Howard dumped Fightback’s goods and services tax. It was a “never ever” promise by Howard in 1996. This, plus the release on the eve of the election of a “simple list which is not Coalition policy” that specified 23 things a Howard government would not do, further blunted the government’s attacks and clarified what a Howard government would do.
Furthermore, during the campaign the Coalition released 37 separate, detailed policy statements including those on privatisation, multiculturalism, schools, the arts and of course, industrial relations.
Thus, these policies, combined with Howard’s ‘headland speeches’ and his own well-known views, meant the Coalition was neither a “policy free zone”, lacked a mandate for its subsequent legislative program, or was in any way a small target.
Indeed, Howard made it clear on election night that the Coalition had “not been elected to be just a pale imitation of the government” and that he had an “emphatic mandate” to implement their policies.
What we have seen these last few months is the usual election game between the government and opposition. Governments stress stability, exaggerate fears about change and raise fears about an opposition’s program. At the same time they have to propose new policies to match an opposition’s promises and to show they have not run out of ‘puff’. Meanwhile, an opposition cannot remain a small target for long. Policies must be articulated to justify a change of government and to gain a mandate to govern.
Getting this balance right to win votes requires considerable judgement by the respective government and opposition leaders. At the end of this election people can judge which leader got it right and who has a mandate to do what.
Dr Scott Prasser co-edited Policy & Change: The Howard Mandate