Accessions to power: are women prime ministers different?

Leadership challenges - federal, state and territory - are hardly foreign to Australian politics. Throughout the 1980s, the Liberal Party harboured continuing rivalry between Andrew Peacock and John Howard, turn and turn about being opposition leader. Following stable leadership from Don Chipp then Janine Haines, Australian Democrats swapped leaders – Michael Macklin, Janet Powell, John Coulter, Cheryl Kernot, then Meg Lees, Natasha Stott Despoja, Andrew Bartlett and Lynne Alison. On average, a new leader every two years, election by party membership not obviating dissension in parliamentary ranks. Meanwhile, the Australian Labor Party has had its leadership challenges.

Sniping from those seeing themselves as 'rightful' leaders yet being deposed or not having attained the position happens, too. Generally the media moves on, those wishing to maintain media coverage of their ambitions being disappointed. Before too long, they lack traction, being seen, if at all, as 'whingers', MPs unable to extract the baton from the knapsack.

Between elections, every Prime Minister remains so (absent misfortune as with Harold Holt or resignation as with Robert Menzies) through party room (L-NP coalition) or caucus (ALP) support. Neither party room nor caucus members are 'faceless'. They are seen and heard almost daily on Senate and House of Representatives broadcasts. Many (some may believe too many) are seen, heard or read about in other media coverage.

When a leadership ballot occurs, having gained the majority of votes in the party room or caucus the winner is accepted by media and public as 'the leader'. Where numbers are close, the media speculates on possible future challenges and comments on the possible 'lame duck' status of the incumbent. Where numbers confirm a significant win, the media acknowledges the leader as secure and the challenger as losing through a legitimate process.

Except where the Prime Minister is Julia Gillard.

Why the failure of media critique, in assertions that 'dismal polling' on the part of the Prime Minister reflects 'questions about her political legitimacy' arising out of her replacing Kevin Rudd? Why no critique of the contention that by her accession to power, the Prime Minister has relinquished 'trust'? Why the implication that the Prime Minister's position is 'suspect' because the caucus majority voted for her, not her challenger who is said to be 'preferred' by the public? What gives fuel to the notion that the Prime Minister's position is untenable, when she won the caucus vote in June 2010 and February 2012 'fair and square', as Prime Minister (re)won her seat at the 2010 election, and led the ALP to power as a minority government, through negotiation with non-party Members of Parliament?

When it comes to Prime Ministers, only once has a woman held the top job. Concentration upon her accession to power and remaining there is inexplicable if one accepts that no distinction is being made between her and previous holders of the Prime Ministership. Yet to assert there is no difference, that the treatment of the Prime Minister today is no different from that of past Prime Ministers, runs against the evidence.

When Harold Holt disappeared into the sea at Portsea, his replacement by Jack McEwan through party room vote was taken by media and public as resolution by accepted process: it was the party room's role to decide who would fill the Prime Minister's post. This, despite William McMahon's having held his seat in Parliament as Deputy Prime Minister: the Country Party's antagonism to McMahon (and McEwan's reported 'distrust' of him) prevailed, 'voter's choice' or 'pubic popularity' irrelevant.

When John Gorton succeeded McEwan as Prime Minister, moving from Senate to House of Representatives to do so, a party room vote gained him top spot. Sixty-eight per cent of Higgins' electors won him his lower house seat. But they did not vote him in as Prime Minister. The party room did. This was accepted as the L-CP coalition's method of choosing its leader and, being in government, thus the Prime Minister.

In a later party room ballot, McMahon won, becoming Prime Minster with Gorton his deputy. The Australian public and 'popularity' did not make the decision. The party room did – most particularly the CP in renouncing McEwan's 'veto' against McMahon. No allegation that McMahon held the post 'illegitimately' because he did so through a party room vote ensued. More attention was paid to Gorton's principal private secretary, Anslie Gotto, as Gorton's (alleged) 'nemesis' through her apparent control of who would and wouldn't be allowed access to her boss, and when.

Upon the Whitlam Government's 1974 re-election, Malcolm Fraser challenged Billy Snedden for opposition leadership. Support by the conservative faction of the Parliamentary party not giving him the numbers, he lost. When in March 1975 at his second challenge Fraser won, he won in the party room through a majority of MPs votes. Later, his Prime Ministership was not challenged on the basis that he came to the office 'illegitimately' because he gained leadership of the Liberal-National Party coalition through a party room vote. Challenges to his status as Prime Minister arose from the Governor-General's dismissal of Gough Whitlam.

When Bob Hawke challenged Bill Hayden and won, shortly thereafter becoming Prime Minister, he was memorably charged with 'blood on his hands'. The ABC's Richard Carleton was condemned for this but the allegation did not dog Hawke's days in the job. Referred to over the years, it held a prime place in Carleton's obituaries. Yet it did not figure prominently, as a constant reminder, in Hawke's Prime Ministership. Hawke was not tarred with contentions of his Prime Ministership as 'illegitimate' because he'd dislodged Hayden as Opposition Leader by caucus vote.

Howard's 1985 win over Opposition Leader Peacock was not delegitimised by the media, nor did the media continually contest his leadership because he won by party room majority, although some polls favoured Peacock. When in 1989 Peacock won over Howard the media, or parts of it, may have deemed this a wise choice, but the party room's power and right to make the choice remained unassailed.

Alexander Downer's defeat of John Hewson by majority vote in the 1993 post-election party room challenge may have surprised media and public, but led to no charges of 'illegitimate leadership'. Focus was on 'the numbers': who has or doesn't have them in determining parliamentary party leadership. Party polling led to Downer's standing down and Howard's taking over – but it was not the voters who promoted Howard into Liberal opposition leadership. Again, it was the party room.

When Paul Keating won the 1991 caucus ballot over Hawke, the media did not continually assail his Prime Ministership because his accession came through caucus majority – despite Hawke's public popularity. Keating was criticised for 'arrogance', not because the caucus preferred him at his second Hawke challenge.

Malcolm Turnbull's ousting of Brendan Nelson as Opposition Leader did not meet with a media charge of illegitimate leadership through vote-by-party-room. When in December 2009 Tony Abbott in turn ousted Turnbull, the media did not deem the accession 'wrong' because public popularity favoured Turnbull, not Abbott. It was a 'shock' (41-42 votes), but media focus was on the party room's vote against the Government's Emissions Trading Scheme (54-29). One commentator questioned the 'legitimacy' of the party room's choice of a leader holding one-fifth 'popular' support of the public and its negation of the climate change policy. But he did not contest legitimacy of the process of choosing Opposition Leader.

Now to the Beazley-Crean-Latham-Beazley-Rudd displacements. Simon Crean became ALP Opposition Leader when Kim Beazley resigned from the post following the 2001 election defeat. Crean had no easy ride. Beazley stood in the background with supporters running a rumble in the caucus, ultimately leading to a challenge. Despite public opinion polls apparently favouring Beazley over Crean or at least supporting Howard as 'preferred Prime Minister', Crean won (58-34). Hence Crean remained Opposition Leader. Later he resigned at the behest of a caucus group. In a Beazley-Mark Latham contest, Latham (47-45) was surprise winner. Yet again, no public vote.

Criticism of Latham centered not on the process: caucus leadership vote, but his style, particularly public comments and appearances. Beazley's January 2005 return to leadership, replacing Latham, followed Labor's poll defeat. His return came not through public 'vote', but by caucus: Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, potential 'top job' candidates, stood aside.

In December 2006, the end to Beazley's leadership was not by public vote but caucus challenge. Who challenged? None but Rudd.

According to media reports, the NSW 'Right' pledged its support to Rudd, contingent upon his challenging prior to the 2006 festive season. In November Rudd told Beazley of his intention to contest the leadership. In December Beazley announced a leadership and frontbench spill, voting occurring on 4 December. Rudd (with Gillard as his deputy) won 49 to 39 caucus votes. Gillard became deputy unopposed.

Rudd and Gillard led the ALP to power in 2007, Rudd winning his Griffith (Qld) seat, Gillard her seat, Lalor (Victoria). That he won leadership and hence Prime Ministership through NSW Right support features nowhere in present criticism that his successor, Gillard, gained leadership with that very same group's support. Rather, 'Right' support features strongly in the Gillard critique, along with her taking the Prime Ministership from her predecessor: Rudd's standing down, Gillard was elected unopposed. Twenty-three days later, in July, she announced an August election.

On 27 February 2012, the most recent challenge, Gillard as Prime Minister won against Rudd decisively: 71-31. Thus by caucus votes Rudd came to power and by caucus votes he lost. By caucus support Gillard came to power, and by caucus votes she retained it.

To date twenty-seven Prime Ministers have served Australia, ten being defeated at a general election, including McMahon, Fraser, Keating and Howard. Yet '21 changes of Prime Minister without an election' have occurred:

• vice-regal intervention: Whitlam
• voluntary departure: Barton, Fisher, Page, Forde, McEwen, Menzies
• party-room/caucus coups: Hughes, Menzies, Gorton, Hawke, Rudd
• death: Lyons, Curtin, Holt
• defeat in Parliament: Deakin (2), Watson, Reid, Fisher, Fadden

Seven Prime Ministers have never won an election. The incumbent Prime Minister is not among them.

Yet Australia's Prime Minister is subjected to continuing attack because the numbers in a parliamentary labor party ballot favoured her – once, through support for her uncontested accession, once through a resounding win. The Australia public is told she should not hold her post, because the Australian public (allegedly) favours her caucus rival. Commentators say her holding the Prime Ministership, is 'wrong' because the February 2012 challenge meant she retains it through caucus vote.

Why?

Australia's political system is not a presidential one. No Prime Minister holds that role as does the US President. No Prime Minister is 'voted in' by electors as Prime Minister – apart from those of an MPs own constituency. Every single Australian Prime Minister has come to that role because the party room (L-CP/NP) or caucus (ALP) supported them for party/coalition leadership. None retains the post without it.

What makes the present incumbent's case different? Inexorably, one is led to conclude that the 'age-old prejudice' to which Eleanor Roosevelt's 1940s Good Housekeeping article referred (asking whether there could be, then, a woman elected as US President)., clearly remains.

Relentless concentration upon the Prime Minister's accession to power and her retaining the post in the February ballot defies past coverage of Prime Ministers – all men, challengers always male. The savagery with which today's Prime Minister is treated online is disturbing. Mainstream media condone and even encourage this by promoting a discriminatory line against her.

The media pride themselves, as 'the fourth estate', in being different from the institutions they critique – that it is their job to critique. Yet onlookers cannot be blamed for surmising that the media-as-institution suffers from the age-old prejudice of other institutions – the judiciary, business and parliament itself – an inability to assess women on the same terms as men, namely, as persons. Entrenched sexism lies in all our institutions, the media amongst them. Its systemic nature means sexism is infused throughout our society. The media can claim no insulation against this. Indeed, its general performance – there are always exceptions – is, sadly, a confirmation of this problem writ large.

In the 1983 Carleton Nationwide interview of Prime Minister Hawke, the 'blood on your hands' exchange was rapid:

Carleton: 'So, Bob Hawke, how do you feel with blood on your hands?'

Hawke: 'You're not improving are you? It's a ridiculous question, and you know it's ridiculous. I hope the standard of your questioning improves. If it's a question, Mr Carelton, of the electorate having to believe between your stupidity in such a question as that and my integrity, I have no doubt where their belief will fall. You can believe it or not in terms of if you want to appear half smart as you look so bad at. I can expect them to believe that you are a damned impertinence, Mr Carleton.'

Bob Hawke has been cited as, by this comment, engaging in a 'tantrum'.

Should Australia's Prime Minister respond in like-manner to any similar question put to her – and there have been many, 'tantrum' would be amongst the mildest of epithets. Media and online coverage would be beyond reason. Just imagine the uproar.