Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week I had the privilege to participate in The Howard Government Retrospective: 1996, which is the first of a series of retrospectives looking back on the Howard government, the first one of course concentrating on 1996, marking the 20th anniversary of the election of that government. Others will follow over the coming years. At the outset I commend Professor Tom Frame and Andrew Blyth at the Australian Centre for the Study of Armed Conflict and Society and Nick Cater at the Menzies Research Centre for sponsoring these conferences. It was a well-attended event at the Australian Defence Force Academy and included many presentations involving former colleagues David Kemp, Andrew Robb, John Anderson, Brendan Nelson, Gary Nairn, Jo Gash and Margaret Reid along with the leading journalist and modern historian of the Australian polity, Paul Kelly, and me. It involved some concluding reflections by former Prime Minister Howard himself.

Three issues dominated the parliamentary agenda in 1996: budget repair, industrial relations reforms and the partial sale of Telstra. Indeed, the budgetary situation that faced the new government on coming to office in 1996 was much worse than had been anticipated or expected, and the initial departmental advice to the government urged labour market, shipping and waterfront reform along with the sale of Telstra. Indeed, these issues became the focal point of the then new government's program.

As Paul Kelly observed in his book The March of Patriots: The Struggle for Modern Australia, the 1996 budget 'launched the political strategy that defined Howard's social vision and kept him in office'. What I concentrated on in my presentation was what I might regard as the characteristics of leadership. I noted that temperament is a critical element in good leadership. It was clear from the outset that Prime Minister Howard, along with various deputy leaders over that period of time from the National Party, presided over a very effective cabinet. He built a spirit of collegiality both in the cabinet and in the party room by balancing the ability to provide direction with carefully listening to his colleagues. Indeed, Mr Howard's colleagues, from senior cabinet ministers to new backbenchers, were his political antennae, and that was very important to the longevity of that government.

He may not have agreed with every contribution that was made in the party room—and my friend the member for New England verifies this, as he and I were in that party room for many years, and indeed that was the case. There were some that were much better than others, as my friend will recollect. But he was always listening, observing trends and mindful that often it is the small things that can derail a government. Successful governments need longevity, but longevity will only happen if leaders are attuned to the whims of public concerns. It was through that party room and those keen antennae that Prime Minister Howard was mindful of what were the public concerns of the time.

I was the rapporteur of the party room for about 10 years, and my notes of party room meetings are replete with two expressions. The first was that the Liberal Party represented a broad church embracing both classic liberalism and conservatism. The Prime Minister's ability to balance the tensions along this political spectrum were a major factor in the government's success. He understood, for example, that liberal economic reform or an expanded immigration program could only be successful if the government acknowledged and appreciated the innate conservatism of the Australian people. The second constant was John Howard's regular warning against hubris. I suspect it was a reminder to him as much as a reminder to all his colleagues, but he was correct. When leaders and governments appear arrogant, deaf to community concerns and out of touch, the electorate will respond negatively.

A critical element of listening involved a direct conversation with the Australian people, often via talkback radio. In a recent lecture on public leadership, I observed the following.

In my participation in public life for more than a quarter of a century, and my close observation of political leaders, including seven Prime Ministers, I have concluded that it is not the grand rhetorical gestures, the proclamation of aspirations, or even the implementation of proposals and policies that mark the true measure of a leader, but the response to the unexpected, the unwanted, and the unanticipated events that arise. In other words, it is the management of crises, not the projection of aspirations, which is the true mark of leadership.

To finish my quote from my earlier observations: nothing illustrated this point in 1996 more than the Port Arthur massacre, which elicited an immediate and strong response. While endeavouring to accommodate the need, for example, for farmers to have guns—and I came from a rural farming background myself—the Prime Minister held his nerve on the central issue. There was also a clear direction about the government's objectives. The Prime Minister and the Party knew that advancing legislation, even in the face of an intransigent Senate, underscores the importance attached to the measures and the willingness of the government to fight for them. This was to become more apparent in subsequent years on issues like industrial relations reform.

I recall, for example, that the unfair dismissals proposals which the Howard government put forward were rejected on more than 40 occasions by the Senate. Nonetheless, the government, not just over a number of years but indeed over a number of terms of parliament, continued to maintain the principle that these reforms were necessary for flexibility, productivity and, therefore, job growth and rising standards of living within the Australian economy. Despite rejections time and time again, the government continued to advocate those reforms. In the end, the reforms were adopted after a couple of parliamentary terms, but it was important that that indeed had occurred.

This is not to say that there were not mistakes during the first year of the government. The ministerial code, as all acknowledge now, was too narrowly drawn. The image of a Prime Minister wearing a bullet-proof vest at a rally in Sale, where I went to secondary school, was regrettable. Although Prime Minister Howard may disagree, I wonder whether the turnover of departmental secretaries in that first year was premature, at least in some cases, and contributed to the spate of budget leaks prior to the first Costello budget in August 1996. The division of core and non-core promises created a weapon with which that government was attacked for many years by the opposition.

The year 1996 was actually a very busy year in the parliament. The government introduced 201 bills—156 in this House, the House of Representatives, and 45 in the Senate—and of them 84 passed in 1996, 77 in the following year and three in 1998. For me, two areas were of personal interest: the family tax measures, which were introduced in 1996; and the new schools legislation, which was actually an abolition of Labor's effectively 'no new schools' policy, which precluded non-government schools being set up in regional areas such as your own, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, and in the outer suburbs of the major cities of Australia. So it was an important year, as Paul Kelly observed. It was the year that set up the government. It established the basis of that government in terms of both its economic management and its social vision for the rest of what was a long term.

As I said at the end of my contributions, it is the character of leadership which is so important. In her portrait of the great American president, Abraham Lincoln, the author Doris Kearns Goodwin described how Lincoln led an ambitious team of rivals, as she described it, who worked together for the common good of the United States. Given the events since the Howard era, a better understanding of the leadership traits of one of our most successful Prime Ministers is obviously worthy of ongoing study, and that will be something which the Menzies Research Centre will carry out over the coming years.

Finally, may I say it was great to be there for the handover of two important historical items of furniture: the Menzies desk, which Prime Minister Howard used during his term in government, and the chesterfield suite, which attracted from time to time some adverse comment and media attention. I was particularly interested in that because, in the 2008, I became the custodian of Prime Minister Howard's chesterfield suite. In fact, I had it for almost as long as he did. I was glad for it to find a permanent home in the Menzies Library at ADFA for years to come into the future.

Debate interrupted.

Federation Chamber adjourned 19:30