Quotes of the Day

Strip away the underlying cash balance, departmental forward estimates, Treasury's economic forecasts and the rhetorical flourishes in Peter Costello's Parliamentary speech on May 11, and what can you make of Australia's 2004-05 federal Budget? Is it anything but a routine annual statement on taxing and spending? While fiscal policy is nowadays a second-tier economic tool, it's always been a top-shelf political accelerant. It's also the best example around of how governments set the agenda - particularly when general elections loom. If Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Costello have become masters at anything during their 3,000 days in government, it's been how to turn their brand of conservatism - quiet economic reform and blunt social populism - into a winning electoral strategy. Howard's team is like a great football club that's won the comp - and then gets to write the rules for the following season.

It's funny to think back to 1996, when Howard won office. The first Howard ministry was a bunch of no-names; after 13 years of Labor rule, today's big guns, like Costello, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, had no ministerial experience. But the conservatives have put their stamp on the country, improved their party organization and employed the privileges of office to keep themselves in power. Howard became P.M. with a huge parliamentary majority; implementing his convictions - tax and industrial-relations reform, tougher gun laws and cultural realignment - cost him some of his electoral buffer at the 1998 poll. Three years later, his uncompromising border protection stand saw him increase his margin.

Familiarity breeds incumbency. A cautious electorate likes stability. Since 1949, there have been only four changes of government - in '72, '75, '83 and '96. Three-year electoral terms are, in practice, even shorter, as the P.M. can call a poll whenever he likes; on average, since 1972, Parliaments have run out of puff seven months early. The perpetual campaign cycle suits the agenda setters and those who control taxing and spending: they can ensure that wallets are bursting with dollars by the time the electoral writs are issued.

With an election expected later this year, the outline of Howard's campaign pitch just got clearer: continued economic growth, tax cuts all round, and generous payments to voters with children (or those planning to have them) and the aged. Howard has played this game before. Three years ago, he was toast, his government seen as "mean" and "tricky." Sure, 9/11 and the Tampa issue allowed Howard to display his superior national security credentials compared with Labor aspirant Kim Beazley. But a Budget-time spending bonanza six months before the poll helped Howard and his government to get back in the race. Now more than ever, as well as setting the political agenda, governments can manipulate public perceptions. Political scientists have written about the "public relations state"; not "spin" per se, but the way public relations has become institutionalized within government. Not only does the Howard government maintain some three dozen media advisers to deliver its message; like its recent Labor predecessors, it also uses additional people in the state capitals to monitor local media and produce transcripts. If a Labor frontbencher is interviewed on Perth radio, there's a good chance that within a few hours the relevant minister will be responding to the remarks; if a prominent commentator criticizes the government, that will also be passed back to Canberra and duly noted. Less surreptitiously, the Government Members Secretariat in Parliament House churns out material for coalition M.P.s and grooms them for the media.

Accompanying the Budget are dozens of departmental information kits; the material is produced by public servants. News of tax changes, family payments or recent modifications to Medicare will be disseminated via government advertising campaigns. The federal government spent $A78 million on advertising in 2003, making it the fifth biggest spender in the country (wedged between Nestlé and Harvey Holdings). Labor says the government has spent $A650 million since 1996 on taxpayer-funded advertising. Running the country, of course, means placing employment ads, recruiting military personnel and explaining administrative changes. But it also provides tremendous strategic opportunities for getting out the government's message.

At street level in marginal seats, where most election campaigns are settled, incumbency is a huge advantage. The local M.P. becomes well known in the community. He or she will be ever-present in community media and associated with popular causes or the funds to pay for a bridge, say, or X-ray machines for the local hospital. A electorate office (with staff) is a citadel for an incumbent; the requirement that the benefits be used only for electorate or parliamentary purposes is hardly onerous in the hands of clever operators. Every federal member receives an annual $A125,000 printing and stationery entitlement.

Almost half can be squirreled away for the following year - and used for a direct-mail onslaught before an election campaign. For postage or a website, there's an annual allowance of up to $A30,800 (for large-area electorates). A senior Labor party figure says that in the 20 or so seats it is targeting at the coming election, its candidates will be facing incumbents with an average of $500,000 in taxpayer-funded resources for the poll. As well, the system of public funding for political parties provides $A1.90 for each "eligible vote". The more votes a party gets, the more funds it has to pay the bills from its most recent contest - or to fight the next election. But there's another benefit to incumbency. In recent years, the role of federal M.P.s has been evolving, especially in marginal seats. They've become akin to ombudsmen - guiding constituents through the bureaucratic maze, solving problems, listening to voters' concerns, urging them to take action. The by-product of this intimacy is that the sitting M.P. is able to catalog these concerns into a precise demographic and issues database; for instance, any decent M.P. in a marginal seat should be able to list the top five issues for 40-ish working mothers or know what self-funded retirees want. This data can then be channeled to the back-room party wizards. Although Labor rules in all states and territories, Liberal federal director Brian Loughnane probably has access to superior "marginal-seat" material.

The 2001 poll is the example par excellence of the power of incumbency at the national level. Labor needed to pick up seven seats to win government - a mere 0.8% swing in the coalition's most vulnerable seats. But those seats did not fall to Labor. Not a single sitting Liberal or National M.P. lost to a Labor candidate. (Two coalition seats fell to Independents; Labor won Ballarat after a popular Liberal retired). For a variety of reasons, Labor also lost a bunch of its own marginal seats - or those that were deemed theirs through redistributions. According to a recent study by officers of the Parliamentary Library, to win the 13 seats for an absolute majority at the coming election, Labor will need a uniform two-party preferred swing of 2.2%. It's not getting easier.

Howard's incumbency explains in part why Labor has struggled to define itself since 1998. The Opposition has only one-fifth as many ministerial staffers. In costing its programs, it does not have all the information it would like. When Opposition leader Mark Latham blundered on superannuation math, an army of bureaucrats was there to give the Treasurer the correct numbers. If Oppositions are accused of holding back on policy detail, one reason could be that federal governments can call on some 130,000 public servants to mull over those programs. As well, being out of the loop on intelligence and defense has made it difficult for Latham to appear knowledgeable about national security.

There is one small advantage to opposition. Because Latham is not managing the nation's affairs, he can concentrate on winning an election. He can visit the marginal seats; show himself to be a listener and look beyond the opinion polls into the eyes of voters. For all the resources of incumbency, the public won't tolerate a government it thinks is faulty or outdated. Just think of Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating, and the awesome tide of voters that one day showed them the exit.

• Tom Dusevic
• In Canberra, staying in power is easier than winning it in the first place