Extent to which leadership effected the 2001 federal election outcome.

Politics Essay – Extent to Which Leadership Effected the 2001 Federal Election Outcome

The outcome of the 2001 federal election was determined by a number of important contributing factors, of which leadership was important. An essential feature of a liberal democracy, outlined in its most basic definition, is the process of elections. Elections exist to ensure the government reflects the wishes of the majority of its citizens, following the principle of utilitarianism, whereby the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people equals the greatest social good. However, when citizens consider the candidate they are to vote for, leadership plays an important role. Leadership is an important issue, amongst many others in determining the outcome of an election, and the extent to which it effected the 2001 federal election will be the basis of this essay.

Early on in the year, a Labor victory seemed inevitable. The Liberal party was in a state of disarray, and public opinion held them in bad status. The general psyche was that it was a time for a new government. Kim Beazley, leader of the ALP (Australian Labor Party) had changed public opinion of him from being a somewhat undecisive leader and in many people’s eyes was the only possible candidate to take the role of the Prime Minister. Beazley avoided trouble and presented a strong persona, whereas Mr. Howard “incurred the nation’s collective wrath over the goods and services tax, high petrol prices and his Government’s perceived arrogance.”. The state elections in Queensland and WA earlier that year resulted in landslide Labor victories. Two teachers at Scotch college even went as far as to make high risk bets as to the outcome of the election, although only one actually payed up, as it were. Earlier in his term Mr. Howard had introduced the Goods and Services Tax, which put tax on most retailed items. Labor offered a GST rollback, a proposition which gained him support. However, it was events somewhat out of Mr. Howard’s control that were to turn the tides of the election, and ultimately bring the liberal party to a third term of power. The main issues were the Tampa crisis and September 11.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In August 2001, asylum seekers from the Middle-East, who were attempting to illegally enter Australia, were picked up by a Norwegian freight ship, the MV Tampa. The ship wished to dock in an Australian port in order to let the asylum seekers off, but the Prime Minister took a strong stand, refusing to take them in. Instead, he negotiated with an island in the Pacific, Nauru, to take the refugees to be processed instead. This event turned public opinion right around, so that when asked on the importance of immigration, there was a substantial increase in interest. People now saw Australian border protection as an important issue, and Mr. Howard’s strong stance on the matter appealed to many voters. Polls showed around 90% were in favour of his policies. This shows that Tampa was a crucial turning point, and was a saving grace to the Liberal party. It also demonstrates how strong leadership is important in determining people’s favour.

In order for Mr. Beazley to win back party support, he had to distinguish himself from the Government of Mr. Howard, and this is where the first major problem in Mr. Beazley’s approach to his campaign occurred. Beazley had to do something to clearly distinguish himself from coalition policies. The choice he made ultimately brought about the downfall of his popularity and his chance at winning the election. Mr. Beazley decided to oppose Mr. Howard’s strong policies concerning the Tampa crisis of August. Mr. Howard, however, had huge support from the people in this policy, with about 90% of people in his favour. Beazley had essentially shot himself in the foot; He could not change his stance without appearing a weak leader, but to with-hold this policy would also cost him support. After all, it was Mr. Howard’s attitude towards the Tampa issue that had turned the tides in his favour, and Beazley only made this situation worse for himself:

“When John Winston Howard sent in the Special Air Service to stop the Norweigian freighter MV Tampa from unloading its human cargo on Christmas Island, he was transformed publicaly from Prime Minister on the verge of political oblivion to loyal defender of Australia’s sovereignty”

When he realised his mistake, Beazley became very quiet about the issue and somewhat condoned it. This ‘wavering’ policy cost him dearly, as it reflected to the people a weak leader, and when compared with Howard’s example, Beazley had all but lost his initial popularity.

Mr. Beazley’s support was further damaged after September 11, after which “the role of opposition leader’s everywhere (was rendered) strangely irrelevant.” On September 11 2001, terrorists flew two hijacked passenger liners into the twin World Trade Centre towers in America. This caused much outrage across the world, with George Bush promising revenge via a war on terror. It has been a trend seen through history that in times of crisis and conflict political leaders gain great popularity from the people, as it is a perfect opportunity to shine as a leader. The Prime Minister gave his full supprt to Bush, demonstrating that once again he was capable of acting on issues concerning international defence. September 11 and the international turmoil following gained Mr. Howard the people’s support, and thus Mr. Beazley’s popularity suffered imensely. People seek leadership in times of crisis, and Mr. Howard proved himself a capable leader of Australia. Combined with Tampa, this was ultimately the end of any hope of a Labor victory; “It really did put the nail in the coffin for the Australian Labor Party”

These two events devastated Beazley’s previous solid campaign and popularity; The Prime Minister’s approval rating skyrocketed where Beazley’s plummeted. Beazley’s only potential saving grace were the issues his party promised to better; health, education and the GST. However, Beazley’s leadership was seen by the people after these events to be lacking, whereas Howard’s was seen as great. The issue of leadership concerning these two instances clearly determined the outcome of the 2001 federal election; a coalition victory.

The campaigning course taken by the opposing parties adopted leadership as its issue of focus, each candidate doing all they could to show themselves to be capable leaders. The ALP attempted to win public support over domestic issues, such as health education an GST, whereas the liberal party focused their campaign on international affairs. Labor’s policies were, however, seen by the public to be too limited in their affect. Their proposed GST rollback scheme kept roughly 93% of the GST the Liberals imposed, with only minor reductions on goods such as women’s sanitary products. This minimal reduction failed to win any substantial public support. Labor’s attempts at winning support on domestic issues, however, were somewhat futile, as there was constant media attention on international affairs, a forum in which Mr. Howard was shining brightly. Due to his involvement in these affairs as Prime Minister, he was constantly given media attention, whereas Beazley was left with only to designated campaign time on television. As Mr. Oakes observed: “…when there are important and worrying international events, it is the prime minister’s comments and the government’s decisions that will capture most attention and arouse most interest.” During the election campaign Mr. Howard was shown extensively on television taking part in the APEC Summit, talking with a range of important foreign delegates. This reflected to the public an involved and capable leader, one who they could trust to make important international decisions. Labor’s focus on domestic issues was rendered irrelevant: “…it is inevitable that domestic politics will be pushed back in the newspapers and lower in television and radio news bulletins by something like the strikes against targets in Afghanistan and the response of Osama bin Laden.”. The campaigning strategies used by the opposing parties also show how they directly used leadership as a tactic. On television, the Liberals had an advert questioning the public as to who would make the tough decisions, saying Mr. Howard had the experience and had proved himself in recent times. Labor, however, retaliated by saying that if voters brought in the Liberals, Peter Costello would take over as Prime Minister, a man unpopular with the public.

In conclusion, leadership was a very important factor in determining the outcome of the election. However, the two events outside the control of either of the candidates, those of the Tampa crisis and September 11, were used as a vehicle by the Liberal party to show John Howard’s capabilities as a leader. These events allowed Mr. Howard to shine; in times of crisis the party with the advantage of incumbency become very popular, and a change of Government is undesirable. Beazley was on a sure path to success, but Tampa and September 11 rendered a Labor victory all but impossible. It was clear from pre-election polls that after these events Labor’s substantial popularity was completely reversed in favour of the coalition. Each party’s campaigns also showed the value placed on leadership, this being the most substantial issue dealt with in television advertising.