November 28, 2007
Harry Robinson asks: What Form Will the Rudd Prime Ministership Take?
The king is dead, long live the king! Is that the
election outcome? No, we don't have kings any more but we do have a disturbing
trend in our affairs.
John Howard was an authoritarian aided and abetted by a submissive party. He
took little advice and bullied the civil service. Overall, he acted as though he
knew what was best for all the people and he imposed his views, welcome or not.
He paid much lip-service to R.G. Menzies but he obviously missed one of that
man's strengths -- Menzies rarely made an announcement of policy in his own
name. He most often said, "My colleagues and I ." He adhered to the doctrine of
cabinet responsibility which in a rough outline says we are governed not by the
top man but by a collective of ministers.
Truth to tell, Menzies dominated his cabinet intellectually but he never forgot
the principle which bound him. In that scheme, the prime minister is the first
among equals, not the first and only.
John Howard rarely spoke of his colleagues as equals in policy-making which they
were not. They had surrendered to him in the belief that they needed him and
only him to win elections. When he announced an allocation of $10 billion to
save the Murray-Darling basin, he gave no indication of cabinet approval.
Questioned on the point by Kerry O'Brien, Howard said oh yes, he had telephoned
his deputy and the treasurer and a couple more senior ministers. But cabinet as
a whole had not met to consider the $10 billion commitment. Time ran out and
O'Brien had to let it go but he had taken the point.
We could go on and on about the Howard personal domination of his government and
the conduct of national business. Historians will have more to say when the
present has become the past.
So what of Kevin Rudd? Does he recognise the doctrine of cabinet responsibility?
The signs are ominous.
In his election night victory speech, Rudd said he would govern for all
Australians. Not that he and his colleagues would govern, not even that he and
Julia Guillard would govern, but that he would govern. Commentators on that
speech rated it poor for rhetoric but remarked with relief that he had abandoned
the outmoded ALP myths and catch
cries. Not so much as a candle on the hill. We
can be glad of that but we cannot afford to forget "I will govern." This came
after a shrewdly designed campaign which never strayed from its predestined
course. He, Rudd, never once allowed himself to speak on his own private
speciality of foreign affairs. (Too difficult -- no need to frighten the
punters.) He did not allow the technical complexities of broadband to muddy the
water. He kept saying,"I have a plan for Australia .." not we have a plan or my
party has a plan. Voters had to cast their minds back over many policy
announcements to discern the shape of the plan. His plan. No wonder the rout
became known as "Ruddslide."
Of course the then opposition leader flagged more than a bloated ego. In his
formal policy launch, he indicated an entrepreneurial spirit. Details were scant
but he showed that his approach for the nation would invest in education to
advance our commercial power. He seemed to mean that tertiary education and high
level science were major sources of wealth creation. There are other spurs for
scientific effort but wealth creation will do after a decade of philistine,
anti-intellectual government.
The first sign of Rudd's mettle will come when he presents his front bench. He
has said in a cocky way that he and not the party factions will chose his
ministers. Paul Keaing responded that the difference might only amount to three
or four people. It won't be so much who he chooses as who he puts into which
portfolios.
Lurking behind the Rudd enlightenment is the ghost of prime ministerial
authority. Neither he nor Howard are the first to over reach themselves. John
Gorton was adept. The custom at the time was for cabinet to discuss a
proposition round the table. The prime minister would then ask the minister on
his left to "collect the voices" -- count the pros and cons. If the vote fell
short of a majority by one or two, the prime minister could claim the privilege
of declaring the idea carried. But Gorton on occasions took his privilege out to
half a dozen votes or more. He wasn't the first among equals, he was the boss.
By strange contrast Bob Hawke, who had an ego as high as an elephant's eye, was
known to be a consensual prime minister. He did not demand compliance.
The trend to dictatorial prime ministers is scary. Media make half hearted
remarks about "presidential style campaigns" without following through to the
trend for presidential style prime ministers. (One of the huge weaknesses in the
American klunker of a system is that it puts inordinate power into the hands of
one man. Checks and balances are weak and clumsy. The Bush administration
illustrates the potential for damage.)
The Ed-Sci community has much to hope for from the Rudd administration. Let us
also hope that the price does not include authoritarian excess.
As a postscript
thought on the election:
Consider the miserable role played by the media. They
were quick to jump from news-peg to news-peg -- Howard promises $35 billion,
Rudd promises $32 billion, Tony Abbott is late for a TV date, Julia also
runs late, Libs are caught with forged flyers -- sideshows all of them. But
when Messrs Howard and Costello claimed a monopoly on sound economic
management, did the media ask questions? Did the commentariat protest that
the economy took in more than bank accounts? Did they ask why home ownership
was a widespread worry if government had managed the economy so well? Did
they ask why hospitals were run down if we'd had such good economic
management? Media commentators could have changed that part of the national
debate but they did not. Much easier to lollop along from news-peg to
trivial news-peg.
Harry Robinson -- for 25 years worked in television journalism in Oz and the US and was for several years air media critic for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Sun-Herald.