8th Feb 12

“Fair go.” Two words embody Australian values and identity. We claim an acute sense of injustice. We stand against unfairness and for the underdog.

So why don’t we give the Prime Minister a fair go?

If the United States’ economy was half as healthy as Australia’s, President Obama would already be an unbackable favourite for re-election. Yet Prime Minister Gillard languishes in opinion polls.

Why?

We Australians fail to understand our own system of democracy.

The Prime Minister is the Member of the House of Representatives who is able to command a majority in the House. We, the electorate, do not elect the Prime Minister. We elect our local Member. This Member joins with other Members of the same political party to elect the parliamentary leader of that party. The leader who can command a majority of Members in the House of Representatives forms the Government and becomes Prime Minister.

On 24th June 2010 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd lost his capacity to command a majority of Labor Members and relinquished the leadership of the parliamentary Labor party to Julia Gillard who then became Prime Minister.

While it is unusual for a Prime Minister to lose the confidence and support of his parliamentary colleagues within a first term in office, there is nothing undemocratic or illegitimate about the way Julia Gillard displaced Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister. It is simply a rather unusual example of Australia’s particular democratic system in action.

This has been misunderstood by the electorate, misinterpreted by the media and exploited by the Opposition. The speed and effectiveness with which it was accomplished spoke volumes about the relative support for Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd within the ruling Labor party, her courage and her political acumen. It avoided the messy, drawn-out, damaging struggle which often precedes a change of leadership.

It should have been applauded. Instead it was vilified.

The media, blindsided by an event most had failed to anticipate, masked its own failure by using imagery of betrayal and “faceless men”. The opposition predictably cried “foul” and successfully sought to taint a legitimate political process with an odour of illegitimacy. This then became its major ongoing tactic. The electorate felt frustrated because the government had accomplished what polls indicated it wanted to – pull down Kevin Rudd.

Thus a perfectly legitimate process of Australia’s democratic system was unfairly vilified through a combination of misunderstanding, misinterpretation and exploitation.

The unfair treatment of the new Prime Minister escalated through the subsequent election campaign when someone from her own party determined to undermine her campaign and confidence through a series of damaging leaks. No one knows who. This real example of betrayal by “faceless men” was never recognised in those terms by the media.

It nearly brought her down. We, the people, decided through our voting not to give either major party an absolute majority of Members in the House of Representatives. Together we created a hung Parliament and minority government. We left it to the elected Members to decide.

Once we had done this, mature reasoning would acknowledge all bets were off in terms of election promises. We had created an entirely new situation. The Australian democratic process now required leaders of each major political party to exercise superior collaboration and negotiating skills the gain a majority in the House of Representatives. The next Prime Minister had to aim for what could be achieved within the situation we created rather than what they promised in the course of the election campaign. Compromise is both inevitable and desirable in this situation.

Julia Gillard obviously has superior skills for the situation which the electorate created. The Greens and independent Members chose to back her, giving her the numbers in the House of Representative to be Prime Minister. This was a triumph for the Prime Minister personally and for the functioning of the Australian democratic system.

However, a thwarted Leader of the Opposition understandably sought to inflict political damage and create a reversal in the House of Representatives by continuing to cry “foul”. It has been a successful and damaging strategy.

It also inflicts collateral damage on the office of Prime Minister and Australian democracy, diminishing respect for the most important office in the land.

The processes of government are usually mundane. Political reporters need exciting events to gain coverage. Like predatory cats on the African savannah, they hunt in packs seeking opportunity to tear politicians down for the evening news. Incessant opinion polls invite everyone to join in, reducing political processes to a form of reality TV show.

In this environment, to which the electorate has contributed and which Opposition and media are bound to exploit for their own ends, Julia Gillard has never been given a break. Yet recently reporters have acknowledged she displays Ernest Hemmingway’s description of courage – grace under pressure.

In this age, no Prime Minister can or will expect to be given an even break by the Opposition.

For the rest of us, whether fearful Labor Members, the media or we, the people, I have a suggestion.

How about giving the Prime Minister a fair go?
 

Brian L Smith

Executive Officer

The views expressed in Life with Brian are personal views and do not necessarily represent an official position of LCSA on the topic under discussion.