Albanese once called John Howard the worst PM ever. Now he’s trying to emulate him

Six months before the 1998 election, Anthony Albanese reminded the parliament of claims John Howard, then in his first term, was the worst prime minister since Billy McMahon. The verdict, he said, was “unfair to Billy McMahon”.

In a piece published later that year, journalist David Leser reported the surprising fact that Albanese had received both input to and endorsement of his speech from Howard’s colleagues. Similarly, writer Norman Abjorensen put it to a minister at the time that Howard’s may have been the worst Australian government ever. The minister responded: “You’re expecting an argument with a proposition like that, but you will not get it from me.” Abjorensen used the comment in an article in The Canberra Times.

John Howard’s first term as PM was his worst. Anthony Albanese is battling hard to win his second term.Credit: Graphic: Marija Ercegovac

It makes sense that first-term governments are often not that good. They can be like clumsy lambs. They are used to opposition, a political role, so they lean too much towards the politics. Inexperienced, they tend to the chaotic. They can be obsessed with their predecessors, having few ideas of their own. They forget that governing demands particular standards: Howard quickly lost several ministers.

What happens in a second term? You could make the case that by then a government has come to know itself. It has, stumbling about in the dark, discovered its direction. It knows its competencies; its weaknesses too. And its leader has gained confidence not only from experience – there really is no way to prepare for being prime minister – but from being re-elected.

Would that still be the case now – or has governing changed too much? The last prime minister to win re-election after serving a full first term was, as it happens, John Howard. We are now on the cusp of an election. If Anthony Albanese wins, we will find out.

One of the most striking changes of recent years is the way election campaigns now seem to dictate what governments are allowed to do in that next term. Journalists have always pushed politicians to say what their plans are. But in recent years simplistic tricks, including demands that politicians rule things out, have seemed to dominate campaign coverage more and more.

And politicians, perhaps, are more vulnerable to such tricks than they were, less brave. Concerned about scare campaigns, they offer fewer policy details. (Bill Shorten, who retires from politics today, is the recent exception – and the example to frighten others). With fewer policies of their own, they rely more on scare campaigns about the other side, which in turn makes the other side even less likely to offer substance. As part of this vicious cycle, leaders seem almost eager to placate the media by ruling things out before an election.

Unsurprisingly, a lot of those “rule out” questions tend to be about the vexed issue of tax.

A year ago, the independent Allegra Spender was asked whether she would make tax reform a condition of supporting either party for minority government. Spender said it should be a part of negotiations, but she hoped it wouldn’t come to that. Both major parties, she believed, would come under pressure to bring real tax reform to the election.

Illustration by Joe Benke.Credit:

So far that hasn’t happened, though it certainly should have: it is hard to see how we can keep paying for the services we need without more tax. What sort of tax? In November, Spender released a green paper on tax options. The report covered several areas, but at its heart was support for a “rebalancing” of the tax system away from taxing wages and salaries and towards taxing other things, like the investments that wealthier people tend to have.

Presumably, both Albanese and Dutton will be asked about such rebalancing on the campaign trail. Already, late last year, Labor ruled out two such options, in the form of changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing. No doubt these discarded ideas will soon be joined by others.

Where does this leave the Albanese government in a second term? If it wins another majority, or perhaps wins and is only just pushed into minority, will this embolden it, giving it the confidence to strike out in new directions – perhaps break promises? If not, it may be constrained not only by what it has ruled out but also by a lack of money.

When the government broke its promise not to change the stage 3 tax cuts, it took plenty of heat – a fact that stuck with the government, even after it won the public debate on the issue. It seemed, sometimes, not so much encouraged by the victory as scarred by the difficulty. Now, heading into the election, the change to the tax cuts is among its most notable achievements. If Labor wins, it may see its willingness to break that promise as a key factor in its victory – which may encourage it to do it again.

But there is an alternative, too, which is that the government will view victory as endorsement of what, to date, has mostly been a cautious strategy. If calm, steady incrementalism delivers a clear win, then we could see a lot more of it.

A further, surprising possibility is that the government becomes bolder as the election approaches and makes some genuinely memorable announcements, including on tax, or at least deciding to brave the dangers of refusing to rule things out. After all, governments have been known to change.

Following Albanese’s scornful comparison of Howard with Billy McMahon, Howard won, then won again – and yet again. As Abjorensen wrote, the Howard government later developed a reputation for competence, which relied on overlooking that first term. Whether historians overlook Albanese’s first term in later assessments of his government, or come to see it as a template for subsequent terms, is impossible to know. Of course, if he loses, they won’t have to make that choice.

Sean Kelly is author of The Game: A Portrait of Scott Morrison, a regular columnist and a former adviser to Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.