Almost every leader since WWII has opted for an early election — until Albanese

You may have noticed, even as the 2024 political year trudges to an unedifying close, that people are still referring to the possibility of an “early election”.

Just what is defined as an “early election” changes somewhat as any parliamentary term progresses.

Now, it seems to mean the difference between an election in February and an election in May, in what will be very close to a full three-year term served by the first-term Albanese government

For the aficionados, an early election usually means an election brought about early by a double dissolution election, usually within 18 months to two years of the initial election of a government.

Things all got a bit messed up in recent years with political parties’ habit of toppling their prime ministers mid-term. It has tended to blur the lines on what is a “new” government.

But leader churn aside, every leader since World War II who has led their party into government has opted to go to an early election, until now.*

(*Put an asterisk there for later about Kevin Rudd.)

Sir Robert Menzies went back to the polls in 1951 after winning in 1949; Gough Whitlam in 1974 after winning in 1972; Malcolm Fraser in 1977 having won in 1975.

Bob Hawke did the same thing in 1984 after winning in 1983 and John Howard took us back to the polls in 1998 after winning in 1996.

There were “technical” reasons why all these prime ministers justified going to an early election: Senate obstruction of their agendas or the need to align elections in the House of Representatives and the Senate were popular options.

There was rarely any doubt, however, that the final timing of an election was pragmatically based on perceived political advantage: whether to exploit opposition leadership rumblings or get to the polls before an economic, or electoral, downturn. In other words, you went if, and when, you thought you could win.

Loading…

Early polls have high success rate

Going early sometimes required considerable courage. As a colleague observed earlier this year, it must have been some extraordinary leap of faith by Gough Whitlam — and his caucus — to go back to the polls just 18 months after winning office.

Just think on it: Labor had been out of office since 1949. MPs had grown old waiting 23 years to get into government and, almost as soon as they go there, their leader insisted on risking it all again.

And then there was Kevin Rudd. Rudd had soared in the polls in the early stages of his government, elected in late 2007, and through the dark days of the global financial crisis.

At the end of 2009, the Copenhagen climate talks had failed but Rudd had strong public support for climate action. The Coalition had twice failed to pass the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull eventually negotiated changes that may have seen the legislation pass. But this provoked an internal coup which saw Tony Abbott topple him as leader of the Liberal Party on December 1.

Rudd blinked. He delayed the plan. And he ignored the chorus of advice from within his party that said he should seize the moment and go to the polls.

It was all rather downhill from there.

All the prime ministers who went early to the polls were returned, though some got the fright of their lives along the way and just scraped home.

Has the ‘fair go’ faded?

This isn’t necessarily an argument for why all prime ministers should go to early elections, just an observation that it has been a successful tactic and to ponder why that might be.

Beyond all the circumstances that might apply to any of these individual elections, the early election record would seem to add to that argument you will often hear about why voters would support a first-term government: the “fair go”.

Governments deserve a “fair go” to get their policies in place, voters would tell pollsters.

If you’ve been in power for 18 months, you may have had enough time to clear the place out of the last mob’s worst efforts, and be coming up for air to implement some new ideas.

So that makes the timing pretty good to go back to the polls and even to go to back to the polls with a bigger agenda for a second term, as John Howard did in 1998, for example.

The observations about early polls are also just here to highlight what has changed in the political landscape in more recent times.

Some of those changes mean an early election isn’t quite such a clear choice as it once was (or at least makes it a different choice).

It would seem reasonable to speculate about whether voters feel quite so inclined to give governments, and prime ministers, a “fair go” as they once did.

The procession of leadership coups, starting with Rudd in 2010, it would seem, has shaken the sense that voters once had that choosing, or sacking, prime ministers was something that they alone got to do: their one chance to have a say over events has been reduced.

Then there is the change in the structure of our parliaments.

The 1977 Fraser early election saw the rise of the sort of crossbench we have become familiar with, with the election of two senators for the Australian Democrats.

Cross-benches in the Senate, and now in the House of Representatives, have become substantial voting blocs, which means minority government is much more likely after an election, and holding an election just to get better numbers in the Senate is a strategy fraught with risk.

Both sides of politics have seen parliamentary representation peel off to independent and minor party votes.

Loading

 

Empty promises

Amid all the other political dramas this year, the regular revival of “early” election speculation has come and gone.

The polls, the economy, and the budget have all got worse for the government.

The particular combination of high (if falling) inflation and a strong labour market have made it hard to sell the case you would expect to see if unemployment was rising sharply — that the government is helping stave off recession by its spending.

Another reason governments sometimes go early is because of perceptions the opposition is unprepared.

This time around, with just a few months until polling day (whatever the date is), the opposition only has one, even partially, detailed policy on the table, yet it has been relentlessly gaining in the polls.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton sent out a begging letter to donors this week claiming a Coalition government would be “able to reduce inflation and cost of living pressures, deliver affordable and reliable energy for Australia’s future, and create jobs, grow the economy, and stand up for families and small businesses”.

“And that’s just the beginning,” Dutton wrote.

Not one detail on how it would achieve any of these things.

Some in the government believe that very lack of detail will still see voters choke about changing the government.

But we go into an election that will be fought by an opposition so far offering empty promises on one side, up against a government that voters still remain unsure of what it stands for or where it wants to take the country next.

Laura Tingle is 7.30’s chief political correspondent.