Leading questions

It is sad to see two men who have contributed so much to public life so deeply at war with each other

The latest flare up in the bitter and always captivating feud between Bob Hawke and Paul Keating is a reminder that giving credit where credit is due is not as easy as it sounds.

Blanche d’Alpuget’s new biography of Labor’s longest-serving prime minister, and hubby, Hawke: The Prime Minister , is an attempt to explore Hawke as leader. It won’t come as a surprise that the book is largely a flattering account, bestowing on Hawke the lion’s share of credit for the sweeping economic reforms ushered in by his government, which included Keating as treasurer.

Hawke and Keating have expressed their starkly differing views of their respective contributions to the restructuring of the Australian economy – including the float of the Australian dollar in 1983 – before. However, d’Alpuget’s account, ostensibly written without fear or favour, and coming after a lull in hostilities between the two men, has proved too much for Keating to bear without contest.

The book presents Hawke as a natural leader, Keating as a “ditherer” and a man of “frightening” strengths but also “frightening weaknesses’’. It also pointedly ascribes various alleged weaknesses of character and leadership to the fact that Keating has “little formal education’’. Further, the book accuses Keating of “attempting to destroy Hawke’s place in history by rewriting it”.

It is genuinely sad to see two men who have contributed so much to public life so deeply and bitterly at war with each other. There is no doubting Hawke’s popularity (“Mr 75 per cent”), passion and skills as a leader, particularly at the height of his powers as prime minister. Nor can Keating be thought of as anything but electrifying, visionary, accomplished and utterly fearless as a leader – whether as treasurer or as prime minister in his own right after overthrowing “Old Silver” in 1991.

It is a truth of leadership that one individual, with his or her own unique set of innate qualities, talents and attributes, can inspire, invigorate and impassion a team, an organisation, a community, or indeed a nation. But it is also true that strong leadership is an enabler; success is very often the result of combined effort. Successful companies recognise the benefits and strengths of leadership teams; successful leaders understand the importance of delegation and the counsel of others; and successful governments, such as Hawke’s and unlike Kevin Rudd’s, benefit greatly from cabinet government and the collective marshalling of ideas, experience and wisdom.

This is not to deny the contribution that a leader makes as an individual, but it is always fraught ground when attempts are made to reduce complex decisions to a simple, black-and-white narrative. Big decisions usually involve intricate webs of chronologies, histories, circumstances and personalities – all of which are contestable because of that very intricacy.

The problem with seeking personal credit is that inevitably, human nature being what it is, too much credit is claimed at the expense of others. Keating’s anger is understandable and expressed with familiar artistry when in his explosive letter to Hawke, in which he repudiates d’Alpuget’s book, he writes: ‘’It is as if, Narcissus-like, you cannot find enough praise to heap upon yourself.’’

When all is said and done, when assessing the legacy of the Hawke-Keating government, the outcomes are far more important than the personal credit. The value of the partnership far outweighs the vanities and recollections of individuals.

As federal Labor Minister Craig Emerson told ABC TV: “They were a dynamic duo that led to the creation of the prosperity that we enjoy. I’m not sure that it serves a lot of purpose to say Paul did X per cent and Bob did Y per cent.”

BRW

Comments (0)