Australian political leadership since Menzies

An essential quality of a leader whether good or bad is the ability to inspire and convince others that they are suitable to lead. What are the additional attributes of a good leader?

I consider that they should have sound principles, integrity and importantly, objectives that are morally and ethically sound. The manner in which the objectives are achieved is as important as the objectives themselves, because if they are dubious it will defeat or detract from the value of the achievement.

They also require courage, audacity, common sense, intelligence, a capacity for hard work and a preparedness to act and stand upon issues of principal regardless of how unpopular they may be.

Qualities of empathy and humility are often forgotten in assessing leadership, but really great leaders never forget or fail to understand the effects of their decisions upon others and to consider their position. Similarly they are conscious of their own humanity and shortcomings.

I think that former US President Truman put it well when he said:“Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous skilful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”

The failure to observe human rights norms in decision making is a classic failure of leadership that we have seen in the US and Australia in recent times.

In Australia there was in the past, an unwritten consensus between the major parties to avoid racism and discrimination, even though it might yield political advantage. Similar considerations applied to the targeting of minorities and dog whistling. In recent times this consensus has been broken, largely on the conservative side and human rights have been ignored.

Good political leadership is one of the most important attributes of any democracy and it is instructive to observe the decline of Australian political leadership since the Menzies era and in particular the lack of adherence to principle.

Most of Menzies early successors were poor leaders and some, but not all were unprincipled.  Significant achievements of Harold Holt were the abandonment of the White Australia Policy and the successful 1967 referendum on Aboriginal issues. Unfortunately, these achievements were overshadowed by the disaster of Vietnam, supported by all relevant Liberal leaders at this time, with its associated sycophancy to the USA.

The most outstanding leader of that time was Whitlam. He was hard working, articulate and as Opposition Leader developed an extensive series of innovative policies He was an imposing figure and a good speaker who had the ability to persuade people to follow him. He showed great courage in tackling the encrusted controllers of the ALP, particularly in Victoria and achieved a significant transformation of his party.

As PM he had his faults but his Government ushered in a raft of reforms that significantly affected Australia for the better. He pioneered the role of the Federal Government in Indigenous affairs, his Government passed the Racial Discrimination Act and there were other outstanding initiatives including the introduction of equal pay for women, to name but a few. He was not frightened to take risks to achieve his objects and in his nineties remains an iconic figure in Australia.

His successor Fraser also proved to be a good leader. He was principled, determined and forceful. He was undoubtedly the best Liberal leader since Menzies and stands head and shoulders above his successors.

To an extent his term as PM was dogged by the controversial circumstances in which he took office. However he was never afraid to take an unpopular stance and the greatest example of his leadership was the way that he handled the refugee problem. Not for him the cheap appeal to Australian racism and xenophobia later displayed by Howard and the present Liberal leader, Abbott. The result is that we have the benefit of many good Australians of Vietnamese origin making a real contribution to our country.

Fraser’s approach to Indigenous issues and international affairs was, and is, enlightened and principled and he was sensible enough not to seek to dismantle the better achievements of his predecessors. He remains a frequent contributor on human rights and Indigenous issues where he shows great leadership.

He was succeeded by Hawke who displayed qualities of good leadership. Politically he was head and shoulders above his Liberal opponents, Howard and Peacock. He was able to explain policies in language that ordinary people could understand and he could carry his party with him. He was a master of consensus politics and never lost an election.

His failures were that he lacked clear objectives and failed to use his great talents and political power to reform and improve society. He had the benefit of a talented Cabinet and a brilliant treasurer in Keating and had the chance to make more significant changes than he did. For example had he supported a Bill of Rights or adopted a republic he would have carried the Australian people with him.

 An unfortunate legacy of his leadership was the opening of the first detention centre for refugees at Port Hedland in October 1991. He also contributed to the monopolisation of media in Australia.

Keating had most of the characteristics of a good leader including charisma, vision and great verbal skills. However was perceived as lacking empathy and humility. His winning of the unwinnable election following Hawke’s departure was remarkable. His constant attacks on others began to grate and he suffered from the fact that he came to office at the end of a long period of Labor rule. Howard’s understated approach was an obvious contrast, which proved attractive to voters. Had Keating survived politically, he had the vision and capacity to become one of Australia’s greatest leaders. One unfortunate aspect of his leadership was his continuation and expansion of the refugee detention policy.

Howard became the second longest serving Australian PM. Normally this would be a measure of leadership success but his leadership was deeply flawed by the manner in which that was achieved. His performance as Opposition Leader was measured and he presented policies that people could understand. On attaining office, his early victory over the gun lobby was an example of good leadership.

Thereafter, he failed most of the tests of a good leader. He nearly lost the 1998 election and appeared to be in trouble again in 2001. He then seemed to adopt a policy of appealing to the worst instincts of Australian voters. The asylum seeker regime for which he was responsible, with its associated cruelty and xenophobia towards innocent people and their children will go down as one of the darkest chapters in Australian history. Other leadership failures, albeit popular with the public were his responses to 9/11 and terrorism, the war in Iraq and the shameful treatment of David Hicks and Mohammad Haneef.

He failed to take action over the problems of Indigenous people and refused to apologise for past wrongs and then unleashed the NT Intervention when facing possible electoral defeat

The advent of the Rudd Government brought new hope, but subsequent disappointment. Following his elegant apology for past wrongs, he should have had the courage to capitalise on the goodwill and popular support generated by the apology to address the issue of Australia’s relationship with Indigenous people.

Unaccountably he not only did very little but also continued the Howard Intervention. It remains a costly failure.

On immigration he vacillated. On climate change, after describing it as one of the great moral challenges of our time he went to water and lost a huge amount of respect from the voters and eventually the Prime Ministership as a result.

The present Prime Minister, Julia Gillard took office in circumstances that left her vulnerable. She has since been the subject of unprecedented attacks by the Murdoch media and its right wing acolytes and associated unprincipled behaviour by the Opposition that has left her unpopular with voters. She is in the difficult position of leading a minority government relying on Greens and Independents for support. She continues to be dogged by the asylum seeker problem, not least because of the unprincipled populism of Opposition Leader Abbott.

However she has shown leadership on climate change and other issues despite their political unpopularity. If given the chance she could be a good leader. Abbott as alternative PM gives rise to great concerns about his leadership. He announces no policies but simply seeks to tear down the Government.  He frequently adopts populist positions on issues like asylum seekers, climate change and gambling without regard to the national interest.

The difficult question is why our leadership has deteriorated to this point. I think that the media has much to answer for in dumbing down the political process. Laurie Oakes has argued that the media only reflect the attitudes of the politicians, but I do not believe the answer is that simple.

Modern media sees its role as to entertain rather than inform. News Limited, which follows this approach, occupies a near monopoly position in the print media in each of our major cities and its links to the electronic media ensure that it reflects the views expressed in the Murdoch press. Fairfax and the ABC are the only remaining bastions of an independent media but their penetration to the average member of the public is limited.

What then are the solutions? The answer is complex and I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I suggest the following:

First we should encourage and vote for leaders and political parties who are prepared to lead rather than follow what they perceive to be public opinion, which is often manipulated by the mass media.

Secondly and most importantly, since our leaders are not to be trusted, we should strengthen the democratic process by the passage of a meaningful Bill of Rights that is justiciable at the instance of individuals. Had we done so in the past we could have avoided the abuses that took place in relation to asylum seekers, the Northern Territory Intervention and mandatory sentencing to name but a few.

Thirdly we should examine further approaches to the control of the worst aspects of the media while preserving freedom of speech. The tendency in recent years has been to relax controls on the media and we are experiencing the results of this approach today. Television and radio licences used to be regarded as a privilege that carried with them certain responsibilities and we used to have a broadcasting tribunal that had real powers to enforce them. The Government’s proposed media inquiry is a positive step.

Finally, it is time that our leaders addressed some of the real issues that confront our community.