Illustration: Jim Pavlidis. Indeed, the Abbott-led Coalition was the most rancorous opposition since 1972-75, when its unscrupulous predecessors refused to accept the legitimacy and authority of the Whitlam government. While Sir John Kerr has appropriately attracted most of the opprobrium for the Dismissal, the opposition leader, Malcolm Fraser, was, of course, crucial to the sensational events of 1975. Those involved in them and those who followed them closely are unlikely to have adjusted their perception of Fraser to his latter-day guise as a paragon of conscience and principle. Abbott's approach as opposition leader proved distinctly successful. Like Whitlam, he ended up getting the better of three Labor prime ministers (Rudd twice). The upshot, then, was similar, but the method was anything but. Whitlam was creative and positive, whereas Abbott was Captain Negative. Whitlam was the most constructive opposition leader Australia has known; Abbott the least constructive. Contrasting approaches also ensued in government. Whitlam regarded the detailed list of promises he outlined in his 1972 "It's Time" policy speech as a sacred testament tantamount to a contract with the electorate. After his cabinet made a decision that implemented a policy commitment, Whitlam would tick the relevant item in his copy of the "It's Time" speech with a contented flourish. This involved not only the landmark reforms highlighted recently — Medibank, education, sewerage — but also numerous other worthwhile initiatives, including investment in urban public transport (underlining the absurdity of Abbott's claim that the federal government's role is to fund roads, not rail). Moreover, when the Whitlam government encountered economic problems, and advisers urged that slowing the reform momentum would be prudent, Whitlam was adamant that financial difficulties could be no alibi for delaying implementation of the program.

Abbott's approach could hardly have been more different. Having pledged during the 2013 campaign that he would lead a government of no surprises and no excuses, and having given repeated explicit assurances that there would be no cuts to health, education, pensions and the ABC, he proceeded in office to do precisely the opposite. Unexpected decisions - a solitary woman in cabinet, no science ministry, and a retreat from the acclaimed Gonski system of school funding - came so thick and fast that commentator Annabel Crabb concluded within three months of Abbott becoming PM that he was leading "the Surprise Party". Then came the extraordinary budget, with its wide-ranging cuts that made a mockery of his election promises. It was blatant, brazen and breathtaking - and still is. Abbott had declared during the campaign that he wanted "to be known as the Prime Minister who keeps commitments". Remarkably, even after the unfair 2014 budget, he has maintained with shameless effrontery that keeping promises is a priority for his government. It's no wonder, then, that Abbott has become the first newly elected PM to miss out on a political honeymoon. Still, it's intriguing that he would be so cavalier with his credibility. Might another opposition leader, Abbott's idol John Howard, have provided an influential precedent? Howard succeeded Paul Keating as prime minister at the 1996 election, having become opposition leader (for the second time) about a year earlier. During those months in opposition Howard delivered a series of vague "headland speeches" that were fluffy and non-committal, and repeatedly promised that he would not reduce expenditure on health, education, the ABC and other specific social programs. At the time Keating was profoundly frustrated that Howard's veracity was widely accepted and scrutiny was soft.

Later that year came Howard's "budget of betrayal", featuring savage cuts to health, education, the ABC and other social initiatives he had guaranteed he would retain. Howard airily dismissed his former undertakings as non-core promises. Angry protests culminated in a riot at Parliament House. Abbott's familiarity with these events - he entered parliament in 1994 - has presumably influenced him to emulate Howard's modus operandi. (And might this now extend to the GST, which both Howard and Abbott promised in opposition not to touch?) It's a strategy not without risk: the Howard government almost lost the 1998 election, when Labor under Kim Beazley gained a sizeable swing and 51 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote. Whether Bill Shorten can spearhead a similar ALP comeback remains to be seen. But Abbott's unpopularity, reinforced by his own budget of betrayal, leaves him vulnerable. Ross McMullin is a historian whose books include the ALP centenary history The Light on the Hill.