Who was Australia’s best prime minister?

The answer varies depending on whom you ask. Some surveys offer a statistical snapshot, but the deeper question is: what defines the role of a prime minister, and how should we measure greatness?

The 1992 Canberra Times survey

In 1992, The Canberra Times surveyed nearly 300 political scientists and historians across Australian universities. Of the 143 who responded, each was asked to rank the five greatest prime ministers in Australian history. Points were awarded on a sliding scale: five points for the greatest, one for the fifth-greatest. The four shortest-serving prime ministers, along with the then-serving PM Paul Keating, were excluded.

In a more recent Essential Research poll, John Howard was ranked by some as the best prime minister of the past 40 years. His protégé, Tony Abbott, came last. I agree with that assessment – Abbott was, in my view, the worst.

Bob Hawke came second, while nostalgia for Gough Whitlam saw him rise to third.

Anecdotal views

Just about every one of them got us into wars we should never have entered. Even your mate Albo wants to send troops to Ukraine – what a mistake. What’s Ukraine got to do with us? Most Australians would know nothing about it.
Bob Hawke wasn’t too bad. He cost me money, but so did that fool Turnbull. Can’t remember what good he did, but overall he was OK. Maybe my memory’s too kind, but he was certainly a vast improvement on Gough.
The best was Bob Menzies. He brought in Commonwealth Scholarships. I had a University Bursary, which was great for the honour and glory, but paid no allowance. The Scholarships paid a living allowance, which was very welcome to me in those far-off days.
He also brought in State Aid for Catholic schools, which – despite their faults – gave working-class kids a good education and enabled many of them to do very well.

Gough Whitlam ended Australia's involvement in Vietnam, introduced free university education (which allowed me to go to Macquarie University), recognised China diplomatically, and gave us Medicare.
Curtin was a good wartime leader – he encouraged immigration and improved social security.

I echo those comments. A Commonwealth Scholarship allowed me to go beyond my original ambition of earning a Diploma in Industrial Chemistry. That raises the question: does a leader who expands access to education strengthen the state? It seems the answer is yes.

Online Reader Poll

A more informal online survey of over 320 readers ranked Australia’s post-1968 prime ministers as follows:

John Howard for me. There were no pretences about him. What you saw is what you got.

Others were less complimentary:

I can’t believe so many are voting for that lying, war-mongering, economic mismanager John Howard.

Howard’s record on gun reform and economic stewardship was praised, but his refusal to apologise to the Stolen Generations drew criticism. Julia Gillard, though fourth overall, was remembered for launching the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

What Makes a Great Prime Minister?

I would argue that the defining issue is war. It dominates our news and has shaped human history. A great leader is one who ends – or better still, prevents – wars.

By this measure, Anthony Albanese deserves attention. He pledged logistical support for Ukraine, improved relations in the Pacific, eased tensions with China, and implemented the AUKUS defence pact. He also has a capable foreign minister in Penny Wong, who has balanced strong support for Israel with principled criticism of extremist rhetoric during the Gaza war.

Australia has seen the repeated failure of UN peacekeeping missions, often due to poorly led or undisciplined troops. The deployment of well-trained, professional Australian forces – under the right leadership – could help turn that record around.

Albanese has also become the first prime minister in over 20 years to lead a government to two consecutive election victories. He recently held a warm and positive conversation with US President Donald Trump and will meet with him at the upcoming G7 summit in Canada.

Yet Albanese’s legacy remains uncertain. He called the referendum on an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament – and lost.

Still, his government has the chance to bring major change. I see two historic opportunities:

1. Reactivating the peacekeeping mission of the UN, and pressing for reform – possibly via his ally Keir Starmer in the UK – to remove the veto power of the five permanent Security Council members.
2. Rebuilding the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament to tackle the deep inequities faced by Indigenous Australians.

Australia’s First Nations people continue to face elevated suicide rates, overrepresentation in the justice system, and systemic barriers to employment and education. Programs across Asia that empower the landless with small business initiatives or microcredit have had great success. The Voice to Parliament could emulate these approaches through Aboriginal corporations and NGOs, with oversight from a reformed Department of Aboriginal Affairs or the Department of Home Affairs.

Correcting the injustices faced by Aboriginal Australians is, in my view, the greatest challenge the country faces. Albanese has made a start. Now that the major opposing voice has lost his seat, there is an opportunity to finish the job.