Waiting and hoping for a Prime Minister to match Bob Hawke and John Howard

Bob Hawke had a credibility factor that was beyond the reach of mere mortal politicians. Picture: AAP

Bob Hawke won four elections on the trot and was prime minister from 1983 until the end of 1991. He seemed to do it in his stride. It was as if this was the way God planned it.

He could lift people from the drudgery of their ordinary lives and give them hope that better times were ahead. He had a credibility factor that was beyond the reach of mere mortal politicians. He was also lucky.

His good fortune is underlaid by the memory of the seemingly endless bickering between Andrew Peacock and John Howard. From where I sat at the time I was at a loss to understand how any Liberal could opt for the shallowness of Peacock over the policy substance of Howard.

Paul Keating asked a question about Peacock that hung over him like a pall for his entire time in public life: “Can a souffle rise twice?” It was a cruel, demeaning tag that Peacock would find difficult to shake off.

This was a golden age for Labor as a glittering array of cabinet ministers accompanied Hawke on his journey. John Button, Don Grimes, John Dawkins, Peter Walsh and Gareth Evans were all possessed of great ability.

Anthony Albanese. Picture: Gary Ramage

The talent pool was deep enough for Paul Keating to have to beat off Ralph Willis for the Treasury portfolio. Experience in government really does matter. It is easy to contrast the orderly way Labor transferred to government in 1983 with the way the Whitlam ministry set about its task a decade earlier. Having been in Opposition for more than two decades, Labor’s new bunch were like bulls in a china shop.

Lionel Murphy, fondly remembered for his introduction of blameless divorce laws, precipitously raided ASIO headquarters and came up with zero ammunition to fire at the Coalition. It was an embarrassing example of how the distrust of ASIO was embedded in Labor’s DNA.

It was always assumed in Labor ranks that ASIO was “out to get us”. ASIO could always point to the presence in Labor ranks of the likes of Bruce Childs and Arthur Gietzelt who were widely known to be joint ticket holders in the Labor Party and the Communist Party of Australia. When Gietzelt was elected by the Labor caucus to the Hawke ministry I can recall there being quite a few discussions about where Gietzelt could be allocated a portfolio. As a veteran himself, veterans affairs was the logical choice and it must be said that Gietzelt performed credibly in that role. Anthony Albanese has no such associations in his file and can never be weighed down by the fear that someone could reveal anything so damaging about him.

John Howard. Picture: AAP

Kevin Rudd won so convincingly in 2007 that a win in 2010, if he had made it that far, was considered little more than a formality. Rudd’s capacity to alienate colleagues was limitless. He single handedly tried to do away with cabinet having a lead role in government by creating a Gang of Four to deal with the business that would normally be placed before cabinet.

Fortunately, this attempt failed but Labor is still left to deal with his absurd “leader for life” rules, which were born from his paranoia about facing another palace coup.

His rules are fundamentally flawed. Still, Rudd does deserve some credit for taking over the reins after a very destabilising period and conducting an election campaign in 2013 he knew he could not win. He did, however, save some of the furniture and for that Labor owes him its gratitude.

Labor is destined to govern less than the Coalition. The problem this creates is that Labor MPs and senators know this only too well. This accordingly makes them bring in their reforms in a rush after an election win.

So the country which is wary of change has a raft of changes rammed down its throat at a pace far too fast for these changes to be understood.

Kevin Rudd. Picture: Patrick Woods.

The Coalition goes into most elections promising more of the same so there is little for the electorate to digest. Howard, the only great Liberal reformer of my generation, had the courage to take a good and services tax to an election and fight that campaign on that one issue. He succeeded in doing that when the proven way of politics was to get elected and then find a reason to bring in a tax.

Howard could never be tricky. He could not do what Keating described as switch to “vaudeville”. Howard was very much a what-you-see-is-what-you-get type of politician – no artifice just earnest effort.

In the post-Menzies era it is interesting that the two most successful politicians in Hawke and Howard could not be more different in character, personality and delivery. Hawke had never doubted, virtually since he was born, that he would one day be the prime minister of Australia. John Howard had made no such assumptions but he was no less determined than the more flamboyant Hawke. In the lean years after he was deposed by Peacock he refused to disappear. He continued to campaign for many candidates who never forgot his assistance. On Channel Nine’s Sunday program he appeared every Sunday all through the campaign presenting the Coalition view on how that week’s campaigning had gone and declaring who he thought had won the week. I presented Labor’s view.

I have come to regard Howard as a much more substantial politician than I did in those days. He has made a huge contribution to this country and history will treat him accordingly. Only a precious few could match Howard’s contribution to the nation and we should all be grateful for his dedication.