We can't know what sort of PM Albanese would be - but not for the reasons the government says

The Opposition Leader said he'd govern like Bob Hawke. He would bring Australians together, seek consensus, work with business.

It wasn't a bad pitch, as pitches go. Among many people, Hawke's name remains prime ministerial gold.

Albanese needs to address voter hesitancy about change and about himself. By linking back to Hawke, he's drawing on what many regard not just as modern Labor's best days, but as a good era for Australia (although it did end in a recession).

But the Opposition Leader's claim he'd govern like Hawke has its limits. Hawke's strengths as leader came in part from his charisma, and his forging (well before he was PM) of a strong link with the Australian people.

Albanese as PM might have a more unifying style than Scott Morrison, but he would arrive in the job with considerably less political capital than Hawke brought by virtue of his force of personality and connection with the electorate.

In terms of substance, Hawke, in partnership with Paul Keating, led a reform government that transformed Australia. In economic terms, they executed a revolution.

Albanese this week laid out his economic goals: lifting productivity, reigniting economic and jobs growth, transforming the economy using renewable energy. But he stressed, "I'm not proposing revolution."

When he was elected, Hawke wasn't proposing a revolution either. His theme for the 1983 election was reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction, but the detail of his platform was very different from the significant things his government actually did over the following years.

Events - the international pressure to open Australia's economy - shaped the trajectory of Hawke's prime ministership.

However carefully opposition leaders seek to define themselves, it's nearly impossible to be sure how they'll handle the circumstances of power.

We put much emphasis on politicians keeping promises. But it can also be important that, on occasion, they are willing to abandon or breach earlier commitments.

Hawke was willing to do this when circumstances demanded; Gough Whitlam was not.

The government claims Albanese would be the most left-wing prime minister since Whitlam. The problem with Whitlam as PM was not that he was left-wing (a misnomer, anyway) - it was that he was inflexible. He was unwilling to cut back his extensive reform "program" when international circumstances altered dramatically.

It would be interesting to hear Albanese's view on when it's OK to break promises. Understandably, it's not something he'd want to dwell on at the moment.

An important quality of a good prime minister is the ability to react effectively to the unexpected. Labor's wartime PM John Curtin - also referenced by Albanese this week - had that ability.

We can't be sure until they are tested whether a leader will do well or badly in a crisis. Nevertheless, such assessments are important when we consider how circumstances can quickly and dramatically transform.

Who'd have thought the Rudd government would face a global financial crisis? Who'd have expected the Coalition government, which signed a free-trade agreement with China, would be subjected within years to trade retaliation?

And that's not to mention the pandemic.

As Albanese seeks to define himself reassuringly, Morrison and his ministers work overtime to paint him in a dark image, opaque, a risk.

They're slapdash with the brush. For example, they emphasise he's never held an economic or national security portfolio. This is a specious argument. Albanese had major responsibilities (infrastructure, transport) and served in cabinet during all of the 2007-13 government, including briefly as deputy PM.

Prime ministerial aspirants can prepare themselves on these issues, and competent leaders will learn on the job.

As they ramp up national security for the election, Morrison and Defence Minister Peter Dutton are like a couple of tradesmen with chisels, desperately trying to chip away at Albanese's declarations of bipartisanship.

Albanese said on Thursday: "For Labor, national security is above politics." What he's really saying is that Labor needs it to be.

READ MORE:

For its part, the government sees national security as a potential lifeline in its bid to hold onto office. But mobilising it as an electoral tool isn't proving as easy as it might have hoped.

The recent attempt to portray Labor as soft on China policy didn't come off.

The government harks back to the Labor government's low spending on defence, but the opposition says it agrees with the present spend and suggests it might need to rise.

Labor is sticking close to the government on broad strategic questions while criticising the multiple procurement stumbles

The government is rolling out big defence announcements as it drapes the election set in khaki. It hopes Labor will be wedged on something, somewhere.

This week Morrison announced a proposed submarine base on the east coast, and plans for a major defence workforce expansion by 2040. Labor derided the timing of the announcements as election-driven.

Notably, in view of his mini-me tactic, Albanese has left some difference on the submarine base. Labor has not endorsed the government's approach, which is for a decision to be made from three sites - Port Kembla, Newcastle and Brisbane - shortlisted by Defence.

Instead, an Albanese government would undertake a review of Australia's Defence Force posture, which would provide advice on where the subs base should be.

Predicting how Albanese would shape up on the international stage is another crystal-ball exercise. No one would have anticipated, when he came to power, the extent of Scott Morrison's international activism.

Beyond climate policy, we are presently hearing more about how Labor would not differ from the government on international issues than getting a steer on the positive path Albanese would try to carve out. That's the nature of this election.