Rock the Casbah

They must often change, who would be constant in happiness and wisdom.

Twenty-first century wisdom suggests that Confucius was not referring to Australian Prime Ministerships, although there is a case to be made that changing Prime Ministers often is a sign of a healthy, functioning democracy.

Australia has changed Prime Ministers six times in the past decade, the first of these changes being when John Howard lost his government – and his own seat – in November 2007. Three of those changes have been as a result of mid-term spills, not a general election. By any standards, such a turnover is unusual and so it’s reasonable to ask why our elected representatives are turning on their own leaders.

This isn’t a global phenomenon, which rules out the easy answers like the compression inherent in the 24-hour news cycle, the relentless scrutiny and unregulated mutterings of social media, or the dominance of political polling and focus groups, although those trends may play a role.

It’s probably more to do with the indifferent standard of leaders we’ve elected; politicians whose flaws have been exposed while under the pressure of leadership, combined with the uncaring attitude and dreadful ignorance with which too many Australians cast their vote.

Leaders, Spills and Elections, 2007-2016

But really, is a shuffling of the deck chairs such a big deal? Our constitution accommodates a political party wishing to change leader, even if that party is in government, and the their leader is the Prime Minister. It’s legal, and a helluva lot more acceptable than some of the shenanigans that have gone on in Canberra.

When you look closer at the events of the last decade, we may have had six Prime Ministers, but only three times has the PM changed due to a spill. Compared to the rest of Australian parliamentary history, three prime ministerial spills within a decade is a huge number, yet the reaction seems out of proportion. News.com.au ran the below headline when Malcolm Turnbull defeated Tony Abbott for the Liberal leadership and Prime Ministership last September. 

It’s easy to say that our reputation abroad has taken a hit, that our international relationships have suffered, yet the reality is that policy is of more significance than the leadership. Obviously, when a Prime Minister is making Captain’s Calls that influence policy, the line is blurred. Still, leaders are people, and people either like each other or don’t. Most of the business between nations is conducted by Foreign Ministers and their equivalents anyway.

The Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) asked the question, and the majority of the expert panel polled were more interested in the personalities involved in the change (from Abbott to Turnbull) than in any substantive changes to policy. Only Samina Yasmeen mentioned the so-called revolving door of Australian Prime Ministers. 

Aside from a major reshuffle, Malcolm Turnbull's policy changes have been minor – the end of Knights and Dames, for example – and with major policies remaining largely as they were under Abbott, much to the disappointment of swinging voters who were looking for a more moderate Liberal than the Abbott administration. Commentators are finding few differences to talk about, other than a more outward-looking, collaborative tone and a greater female presence.

Business Insider is cautious, yet concedes that so far, the economy has not suffered as a result of changing leaders so often. 

Ratings agencies can’t see a major impact from the latest change in prime minister in Australia, but there will be a downside if the revolving door of national leadership doesn’t stop soon.

Fitch ratings says the high turnover of prime ministers, with five changes in eight years, has had little impact on economic policies, investor confidence or the nation’s credit profile.

“The driving forces have been more to do with personalities than economic policy,” says Fitch.

Such was the national trauma after the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, the Abbott government must’ve been genuinely desperate to risk dumping Abbott. The two spills during the six years under Labor happened relative close to a scheduled election period. If the electorate disapproved of the change at the top, they could say so via the ballot box.

Prime Minister Turnbull’s priority in heading to the polls in July is less about allowing the electorate to vote on the new leader, and mostly about demolishing the cross bench and establishing clear, Abbott-free air in which to pursue his agenda for next three years.

And yet, where is the harm? Looking at a timeline of the last decade, prime ministerial spills have not increased the number of elections held; governments have been running near to term. The Gillard-Rudd Government was stunningly effective in passing legislation, if that’s a statistic that matters.

On winning the party room ballot last September, Prime Minister Turnbull’s media conference included words borrowed from the boardroom.

The Australia of the future has to be a nation that is agile, that is innovative, that is creative.

By any definition, the position of Australian Prime Minister has developed an unenviable agility. Is this rapid change a new paradigm in leadership, or a transitory series of blips? More experienced commentators than I insist that it’s the latter, and under the benign leadership of a competent, popular leader, equilibrium will return. 

I’ve always preferred to challenge the status quo.