Michelle Grattan's speech to alumni - 1 August 2007

Alumni and guests at the recent University of Melbourne alumni reception in Canberra enjoyed a fascinating insight into the coming federal election thanks to our distinguished speaker, Michelle Grattan.

Ms Grattan, an alumna of the University (Arts (Hons) 1966), is the political editor of The Age.

Download a copy of the speech (pdf)

I am delighted to be here with you tonight, but I just want to make one thing clear before I talk about current politics.

I am not, repeat not, predicting the result of this election. Far too hazardous. Calling the race ahead of time is a nightmare for those who write about politics. Those of us who’ve been in the game a while have been burned through the years, however careful we’ve tried to be.
 
Prediction close to the election, however, can’t be avoided and it took a very long time for most of us to recover from the 1993 election. It took John Hewson longer of course, and perhaps he hasn’t yet. You will remember it was the unloseable election that he managed to throw away. 

You don’t even have to predict wrongly to get into trouble. In the 1980 election we had in The Age a poll that ran on the Saturday morning. It showed a Labor win. I knew this was risky territory and wrote it extremely carefully. ‘The poll says, the poll says’, etc, etc.  Even so, for several years people were inclined to say, ‘you got that one wrong’. 

So having covered my back by stressing no predictions, let me stick out my neck to say I think Labor does have its best chance in years for a win.

It is hard to feel there is not a substantial swing on.

But we are all cautioned by the size of the Government buffer, and the need not to be carried away by the polls. Remember the Government was behind as it went into the 2004 election campaign; Howard ended up with a swing towards him.

Labor has to win 16 seats to govern in its own right and the swing on a uniform basis is about 4 per cent.

How much of a task is this?

It’s big, but let’s just put it in context. I am indebted to Malcolm Mackerras’s tables here, and I ask you to forgive a few figures to illustrate the point.  Mackerras claims, incidentally, that it is relatively easy for Labor to win. But then he’s always a guy of certainties.

In 1961 Labor had a gain of 15 seats. That was the election it almost won when the colourful Jim Killen made up, I think, that nice story of the Menzies telegram saying he was magnificent.

In 1969 the Whitlam Opposition gained 18 seats. It was Whitlam’s first election and he set himself up for the 1972 win when the seat gain was more modest.

In 1980 Bill Hayden picked up 13 seats, and never got his chance at a second go.

When Bob Hawke ran in 1983 Labor won 24 seats and the election.

All those elections were when the House of Representatives, expanded for the 1984 election, was smaller than now. 

In 1998 Labor won 18 seats. 

It’s also worth having a look at the swings.  In 1969 there was a swing to Labor of more than 7 per cent, in 1980 a 4.2 per cent swing, in 1983 a 3.6 per cent swing and in 1998 a 4.6 per cent swing. In the election bringing Howard to power in 1996 there was a 5 per cent swing to the Coalition.

So while the challenge before Labor is certainly formidable, it is not herculean.

Nor is the line exactly correct that good economic times provide an inevitable buttress. If you go back to 1972, when the Liberals lost after 23 years in power, the economy was not that bad. 

But there was, of course, a substantial difference between the Prime Ministers then and now - Bill McMahon became a figure of fun in a way that John Howard is not and will not be.

McMahon notwithstanding, the biggest thing in 1972 was a change in community mood.

Now I don’t think there is anything like the winds of change we saw in the late 60s and early 70s. That was fundamental, affecting the whole society in a multitude of ways.

But there are signs of some mood shift - with for example, the rise of new issues like climate change and an intensified feeling about the Iraq war.  Certainly there is something of an ‘It's Time’ sentiment about. It lacks the ’72 passion.  It’s more in the spirit of ‘it's time to give the others a go’.

I confess to being surprised at the apparent transformation of the political scene brought about by Rudd’s elevation to leader.

That it happened I think reinforces the argument about the feeling for change.

People are seeing Rudd as a sign of a generational turnover in politics.

While Beazley was there Howard was doubly protected. He seemed to have Beazley’s measure, even though Labor was ahead in the polls.

And Beazley and Howard were generally seen as of the same generation, despite Beazley being a decade younger.  The removal of Beazley upset all sorts of balances that had been working for Howard.

One could argue that voters have actually wanted to swing Labor’s way, to a greater or less extent, in the last two elections.

Then each time something turned up to stop them. In 2001 in the early part of the year the Government looked to be gone. It is true that it was starting to come back by mid year - shown by the Aston by-election - but it still would have been a close run thing if it had not been for the Tampa and September 11.

In 2004, Latham was ahead in the polls until the campaign, but people instinctively felt they could not trust him.

In the months since becoming leader Rudd has outfoxed Howard, who is normally politically very agile. Rudd has consistently pre-empted the Prime Minister both on policies (e.g. water, climate change, welfare changes to protect neglected children).

The Government is now fighting back in the pre-emption game, getting in ahead of Labor on housing the other day. Howard is using the internet as part of the game. This morning, for example, the Howard announcement on the direct funding of a Tasmanian hospital as part of his push to bypass the States went out on the net at 5 am. The Government refused to brief the papers for even the later editions, presumably wanting to limit the Opposition's chance to respond quickly. Rudd sometimes even pre-empts where Howard is going, making the Government even more secretive about its forward program, as is Rudd.

In the last week there has been a lot said and written about Labor’s me too-ism.

This is Rudd’s tactic to avoid being ‘wedged’ and it annoys the hell out of the Government. Kevin Andrews put out an extraordinary statement last week attacking the Opposition for NOT attacking the Government.

On some issues the me-tooism is reprehensible - for example, the Opposition looked expedient and servile when the media, lawyers and civil libertarians were taking the heat over Haneef. Only when it was politically safe did Labor jump in to call for a review of the case’s handling. 

So Labor will lose some skin from the tactic and infuriate a few in its own ranks - but mostly, it seems, it will benefit, and avoid being wedged, which is the point of the exercise.

There are worries, however, about these tactics on Rudd’s own side that go beyond the left being concerned that some issues are being expediently sidelined.

There is also a feeling within Labor of not being quite sure where Rudd stands on some key issues. The most obvious is industrial relations.

If Labor wins this election it will be in substantial part because of the money and effort of the unions. Yet Rudd is known to be no great fan of the unions and, I think, there is concern in the movement about what changes he would make in IR policy if he won (indeed there is some concern what he might do before the election, because he is taking a long time to announce the transitional arrangements for getting rid of AWAs).

One reason ACTU Secretary Combet is so anxious to get into parliament – aside from reasons of personal ambition – is to be part of keeping Rudd to pre-election IR policy if he won.

The Government is making much of alleging that Rudd is an unknown quantity, but this is also true.

If Rudd wins he will be the least experienced Prime Minister of recent times.

Howard had been around for yonks, including having been treasurer.

Keating had been treasurer. Hawke hadn’t spent long in parliament but was a national figure everyone felt they knew and had an opinion about. 

Fraser had been a senior minister before going into Opposition.

Whitlam had built his credentials and his program over many years.

McMahon had been a senior minister including treasurer.

Gorton had been a minister; so had Holt (who’d been treasurer). And then we’re back to Menzies, who had had an earlier stint as PM when he came back to office in 1949.

So Rudd would really break the mould, and we don’t have a map of what he’d be like.

But we could expect that he would NOT be hanging out on the wild side (which Latham might have been); indeed he would probably be quite conservative on a whole lot of issues. What he would actually want to make his mark on is unclear, because his pitches have been conventional as well as pretty poll driven.

The Government simply can’t get a fix on Rudd. It is frustrated that he sails over the surface of things, producing some policies but often just announcing inquiries or that he will establish offices for this or that.

He seems to have a teflon coating.

Rudd’s mistakes - even welcoming a troop commitment to Afghanistan that hadn’t been announced that day - just don’t seem to bite him back.

I think that now the Government is under pressure it is making errors, and lashing out in a way more likely to alienate than win people.

Downer’s ‘get real’ admonition to critics over the Haneef case was an example this week - an ugly look.

Much worse was the own goal from Peter Costello’s criticism of Howard in interviews given for the Howard biography just released.

Despite this latest manifestation of Costello petulance, quite a few Liberals are wishing now that Howard had stepped down last year in favour of Costello. The point has been reinforced with the smooth handover in Victoria.

The benefits of a move to Costello might seem counter-intuitive in face of the polls consistently saying that people think Howard is better than Costello to lead at the election.

Yet I think it is now looking clearer in retrospect that a change last year would have been beneficial for the Government.

Costello would have had an opportunity to put a new face on the team; in turn leadership would have given him a chance to make himself over into a new image.

And let’s put the opinion polls in perspective. 

In December 1991, just before Paul Keating defeated Bob Hawke for the Prime Ministership, a Saulwick Age poll found 53 per cent thought Hawke would make the better PM compared with 34 per cent who opted for Keating. 

Asked who was preferred as Labor leader for the next election, 49 per cent said Hawke and 38 per cent Keating. Keating of course went on to not only win the ballot but the 1993 election.

If the Government loses, Howard will be comprehensively blamed for failing to manage the transition and that will completely compromise his legacy.

If the Liberal party is out of power everywhere, it will have enormous trouble getting back on its feet.

Costello would get the leadership but there would have to be a big chance that he would never get the Prime Ministership. The leadership could change a couple more times before the Liberals regained power. When the Liberals lost in 1983 the leadership changed often before they got back into power in 1996 - Peacock, Howard, Peacock, Hewson, Downer, Howard.

And if the Coalition loses, it will be left wondering ‘what if?’ But it really does seem too late now. 

Despite all that is going for Labor, Howard is historically a strong campaigner and cannot be written off.

If he did win, however, it is hard to see how this would not be with a much reduced majority. Pressed on whether he would be PM in two years Howard said the other day that if he won the election, yes he would be. But somehow, I don’t think so.

If he was PM with a reduced majority I think there would be enormous pressure for him to be out within a year. There is a great deal of pent up frustration in the Costello forces and I think they’d make life hell till there was a transition. So it would be a very interesting time.

Lastly, let me just touch on what I think will be the distinguishing feature of the coming campaign which could be launched soon after APEC for a late October or November election.

The campaign itself - as they mostly do these days - will count for a lot. That campaign will be fast and highly tactical. Howard will have surprises, Rudd may have more. There will be a lot of desperation, especially on the Government side. It will be a hard ball game, which is nothing new. It will also make considerable use of the internet, which is new. It is certain to be Howard’s last election, whatever happens.  I think it will be a real nail biting contest.

top of page