How will history remember his predecessor Tony Abott? How does history remember Prime Ministers?
We, unlike the Americans, rarely compare our leaders one to the other. Peter Beattie, the ex Labor Premier of Queensland, was the last to do so in an article for The Australian.
The game of ranking Presidents in the US is played every few years and uses a number of different methods. The generally accept method is to ask learned historians and political journalists to rate Presidents against a predetermined criteria which includes integrity, luck, willingness to take risks, avoiding crucial mistakes as well as on ability and performance. Other methods used include - historical remembrance or weight of history or whether the President was a success or failure at election time. There are also mystical qualities and legends to take into account. Washington is the "Father of the Nation", Lincoln is the "Saviour of the Union" as well as dying tragically by an assassin's bullet and Franklin Roosevelt, he of the "New Deal", won the Second World War. It is no surprise that these men are considered the greatest Presidents.
So lets play "Where Do they Stand" with Australian Prime Ministers.
Most Australians were shocked with the knowledge that Malcolm Turnbull is our fifth PM in the last 5 years. What is not so well known is that ten Australian PMs (including Tony Abott) have served less than 2 years in office and four more less than 3 years. Julia Gillard lasted a few days more than 3 years.
Of these short timers we can remove four from the game altogether. Forde (7 days), Page (19 days), McEwan (22 days) and Fadden (41 days) only served as PMs in an interim capacity following the death of the then PM (Lyons, Curtin and Holt) or in Fadden's case after the collapse of Menzies' coalition 1939.
The others however were short timers because they were removed by their Parliamentary colleagues or by the electorate or in Holt's case by his own misadventure. US Presidents can only be removed by the people (short of becoming impeached by Congress). Australian PMs can however be removed under the Westminster system by fellow Parliamentarians. In the early days of Federation political alliances were loose. There was no such thing as the structured (and generally) well disciplined party machines we have today. Our earlier short-term PM's (Watson, Reid and Cook) all fell victim to shifting allegiances.
Josh Gorton was effectively removed as PM by his own party in 1971. He tied with McMahon in a party room ballot for leader and then fell on his own sword. There is accordingly nothing new or extraordinary about the removal of Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and now Tony Abott. Seven of our PMs or almost a quarter have gone out in that manner. Of the remaining short timers Scullin was turfed out in 1931 because his government was not coping wit the Depression, McMahon was turfed out in 1972 and the "It's Time" election and is not well remembered. Laurie Oakes (Australia's senior political journalist) rates McMahon a zero out of ten and even questioned McMahon's personal honesty, recalling how McMahon had purloined a recorder belonging to Oakes' news agency and claimed it as his own. Holt had the great misfortune of accidentally drowning himself - hardly a positive notch to put on history's belt. The best legacy Holt left was the old Cronulla wag who said "Waiting for Cronulla to win a flag is like putting the porch light on for Harold Holt to return" - Of course Cronulla has now one the NRL grand final.
No official federal government inquiry was conducted, on the grounds that it would have been a waste of time and money. Neither was an inquest held at the time because Victorian law did not provide any mechanism for reporting presumed or suspected deaths to the Victorian Coroner. However, the Commonwealth and Victoria Police compiled a 108-page report into the disappearance, including statements from all eyewitnesses and details of the search operation.
The law in Victoria was changed in 1985, and in 2003 the Victoria Police Missing Persons Unit formally reopened 161 pre-1985 cases in which drowning was suspected but no body was found. Holt's son Nicholas Holt said that after 37 years there were few surviving witnesses and no new evidence would be presented. On 2 September 2005, the Coroner's finding was that Holt had drowned in accidental circumstances on 17 December 1967.
The middle part of our table - the average performers - are necessarily going to populated first by our early PM's. This may be unfair but unlike America's Founding Fathers, Australians do not even know, let alone hold in high esteem our founding PMs. Barton our first PM set up the High Court and promptly became its first Chief Justice. Deakin and Fisher are described on the official PM site as being remembered as the "founders of the statutory structure of the new nation". That is about exciting an accolade as winning a bronze ribbon for third place in an underage running race. No doubt these men were honourable and hardworking but their legacy hardly shines brightly and not brightly enough to pierce the veil of history.
There are others which, fairly or not, fall into this average category - Billy Hughes, Stanley Bruce, Joseph Lyons and Malcolm Fraser. Of these I think Lyons is the most unfairly treated by history. He stabilized the nation in the 1930s after the Great Depression. He won, as PM, three elections and died in office. The people liked him and kept returning him to power. He also had a wonderful wife - Enid Lyons. Well thought of partners can help a leader greatly, Lyons being a case in point. But think of Margaret Whitlam, Hazel Hawke, Eleanor Roosevelt and the very glamorous Jackie Kennedy as examples.
One reason why Lyons' reputation suffers is that he, like Billy Hughes, is considered a Labor party rat. Prejudice from half the political divide is not conducive to leaving a shining legacy. Both Hughes and Lyons left the Labor party to form new (and successful) political parties. Hughes won two elections so he passes the electoral test for success, but has not been able to shake off his opportunist tag. His unwavering support for conscription during the first World War has also not helped.
Bruce was Prime Minister during the 1920's . A suave urbane man he won two elections. He oversaw the establishment of Canberra, but his passion for all things British and his perceived failure to ready Australia for the Depression count against him.
If being seen as a rat is bad enough, Australians take even less kindly to those perceived as back stabbers - as Julia Gillard found out. Malcolm Fraser's legacy is forever tainted by the way in which he took power. However during his prime ministership, Fraser won three elections and was in power for 8 years. so that perception was not immediate. What happened to Fraser however was a growing view (now solidified) that his was a do nothing government - a government of missed opportunities, particularly when it came to modernising Australia. Losing and blubbering does not recommend one to history's embrace either. Within these ranks, historical perceptions and reappraisals can take place - for better or worse. It will be interesting to see whether there is any future upward movement in the historical view of these PMs.
Now we move up the ladder to the top echelons - the near great or great PMs. Paul Keating once famously observed that Australia has had no great leaders since at least the time of Curtin - writing off in the process Chifley, Menzies and most particularly his rival Bob Hawke. However it is these men along with John Howard who must be considered our top PMs. Peter Beattie rated Howard, Hawke and Keating as our greatest PMs, but marked Menzies, Curtin and Chifley down. Whilst his assessment were reasonable and pragmatic I do not think he paid sufficient regard to history's romantic side - myth, legend and story.
In respect to Curtin, Chifley, Hawke and Keating, legends and stories have or are forming. Curtin was our war time leader, reformed alcoholic who stood up to Great Britain and called the troops home. He also had the great fortune from a historical perspective - much like Lincoln and FDR - of dying in office when victory was secured. Chifley was a train driver who rose to oversee post-war construction with the Snowy Mountains scheme and the immigration programme that contributed so much to revitalising and driving Australia. It was he who first coined the phrase "the light on the hill". Hawke
(he of the boss is a bum line) and Keating transformed Australia's economic settings. Keating also introduced Indigenous land rights legislation and famously kissed the ground on the Kokoda track. Menzies and Howard (and I am not suggesting they are stuff of legends) nonetheless won twelve decisions between them and presided over years of peaceful and generally prosperous progress. Voters love that sort of thing so why should history not follow?
Of course each of these leaders had their faults and failures - but the point is their positives, in comparison with the others below them, stand them in good historical stead.
That leaves one PM that is difficult to categorize - Gough Whitlam. He was Prime Minister for only 2 years and 11 months. He won two elections. Is he great or is he a disaster? On the positive side of the ledger is his transformation of Australian life - free university studies, fault free divorce, modern trade practices and corporation legislation and recognition of China. On the negative side is the poor economic management and the scandals. When he left office Whitlam was, in truth, considered a failure. Now 40 years on, his star is rising. Australians forget the temporary things whilst history focuses more on the noble - which is a good thing. Whitlam too, like Kennedy, is one of our few legendary figures. His Prime Ministership may not have been great - but he himself is increasingly remembered as being great. Right now I put him at the top of the average group - but I will not be surprised if his legacy, like Kennedy's in America, will continue to rise. Legend and myth are powerful forces when playing the game.
Are there lessons here for Malcolm Turnbull? Firstly make sure you are not seen as a back stabber. A model here is how Hawke dealt with his disposal of Billy Hayden - as a necessary evil. Secondly give people some hope and vision like Chifley did. Thirdly win next years' election and finally avoid the big scandal or big mistake like Howard or Menzies did. It actually sounds easy. Pity only a very few seemed to have pulled it off.
Here then is the ranking:
GREAT OR NEAR GREAT
1. John Curtin
2. Bob Hawke
3. Robert Menzies
4. John Howard
5. Paul Keating
6. Ben Chifley
AVERAGE
7. Gough Whitlam
8. Joseph Lyons
9. Malcolm Fraser
10. Stanley Bruce
11. Billy Hughes
12. Alfred Deakin
13. Andrew Fisher
14. Edmund Barton
FAILURES OR BELOW AVERAGE
15. Julia Gillard
16. Tony Abbott
17. Kevin Rudd
18. James Scullin
19. Joseph Cook
20. John Gorton
21. Chris Watson
22. George Reid
23. Harold Holt
24. William McMahon
---------------------------------
- Written by Mark Mony de Kerloy
