According to my recollection, and confirmed by
http://australianpolitics.com/elections/dates/federal-election-outcomes.shtml
there were not Federal elections in either 1985 or 1988.

I wonder how much of the article is accurate.

Bertrand’s essay is a useful short description of Howard’s political biography, but it fails dismally as an analysis of the Howard legacy.

Terms like ‘political courage’ are strewn about uncritically when ‘political cunning’ or ‘whatever-it-takes-to-hold-office’ might be more accurate. The illegal invasion of Iraq ‘turned out to be a mistake’. A mistake? Pardon?

“Howard went on to win three more elections,” says Bertrand with no analysis of the circumstances of those wins. No Tampa, no children overboard, no 9/11, no security threat, no Iraq, no One Nation, no empty posturing on interest rates, no union bashing, no resources boom, no election bribes to middle Australia, no supine media.

It’s a dry argument in every sense to say that, “Arguably WorkChoices went too far in removing protections for the lowest paid workers.” Arguably? These low-paid workers are voters too as Stanley Bruce found out when that PM lost his seat.

The portrayal of opposition to Howard as the ‘special hatred’ of ‘the left’ is simplistic and clichéd. Howard’s policies created a broad range of opposition on a variety of issues (including within his own Party) and the image of ‘Howard Haters’ is as much a media image as Keating’s arrogance.

Bertrand misses a critical point about Howard’s intolerance. To gain power he publicly moderated his views about Asians; but at the end of his reign he had reverted to type with his abolition of multiculturalism at a time when his own seat of Bennelong saw an upsurge in voters of Asian heritage. Not smart enough, John.

Howard’s legacy? The muted eulogy by Bertrand omits reference to divisiveness such as the promotion of culture wars, the systematic placement of Liberal stooges to non-elected public office, the replacement of ‘political correctness’ by suppression of dissent and the corruption of public debate, the lowering of standards of public life, the endemic pork-barreling for cheap political advantage, the use of taxpayers' funds for Party political advertising, the erosion of civil rights in Australia and the debasement of Australia’s role in the United Nations and the belated mock discovery of Indigenous issues and climate change?

Frank, if you're going to talk about the circumstances of the wins, then I'm not sure how you can leave out the fact the majority of the population didn't want him back in 1998, after only 2 years. To win with only 49% of the vote was something of a statistical fluke.

"Howard was liked and respected by most Australians"? You must be joking. Even when his appeals to my self-interest resulted in my voting for him I despised him.

Mr Bertrand - are you on the level?
in addition to the many factual errors in this piece of nonsense, you neglect to mention the introduction of racism into Australian politics; the virtual torturing of hundreds of children in the various tropical hell-holes; the rapacious commandeering of commonwealth funds for party political purposes; the pandering to the 'american style' religious right and to the 'doyen' there of - ie George Bush; the religious interference in education; the reduction of the Australian workforce to beggerly status; the demonising of the Moslem community, again for political advantage;-- the list goes on.
As to the gun laws, change was well on the agenda prior to the Port Arthur massacre but nothing was done until that dreadful event took place. I would point out that Premier Barry Unsworth sacrficed his premiership trying to introduce gun control.

This is a very balanced and largely accurate article. However I believe Mr Howard was a "great" (not "fairly good") Prime Minister, and his government was "excellent" not merely "good".