Prime Minister


Introduction

Although the office of Prime Minister is a central institution in our system of government, it is not mentioned in the Australian Constitution. Even so, it has a long history in the Westminster tradition.

From earliest times, groups of advisers assisted the English (and later British) monarchs in the government of the nation. These advisers came to be known as ministers, from the Latin minister, meaning attendant, servant or assistant. In time, the greater influence of one member of this group of advisers, often the minister responsible for finance (the First Lord of the Treasury), resulted in him being called the Prime Minister, where the word prime (also of Latin origin) meant first or chief.

Sir Robert Walpole is often described as the first British Prime Minister. Walpole was appointed as the First Lord of the Treasury from 1721 to 1742. Through his personal influence with the monarch and his use of the nation’s finances for the patronage of electoral candidates favourably disposed towards the King, Walpole gained great influence in the King’s Court and in parliament. In Walpole’s time, the term “first minister” or “Prime Minister” was a term of abuse. It was used derisively to suggest that the King’s closest adviser was taking too much upon himself. Walpole rejected the term and it took years for it to become acceptable.

Walpole was genuinely a servant of the crown. His position as first adviser depended on the crown’s pleasure and he had to take care that he did not fall foul of some palace intrigue. While at that time the nation and its elected representatives in parliament decided national policy, the crown had a free hand in selecting its ministers to administer that policy. Today’s ministers continue to be described as servants of the crown; however, the description is now a quaint fiction.

The place of the Prime Minister in government has evolved considerably since Walpole. It was William Pitt, the Younger, (British Prime Minister 1783-1801 and 1804-06) who began to shape the premiership into what we understand it to be today. Also, beginning with the crises over the 1831 and 1832 Reform Bills and the threat of civil war, the parliament has progressively usurped from the palace the right to select the Prime Minister and the ministry to administer the realm.

This process was not completed in the United Kingdom until the 1960s, when the Conservative party moved to elect its leader in government (following the death or resignation of the Prime Minister) rather than allow the Queen to use her prerogative to ask a politician to try and form government. This change came about, in part, through discontent with the Queen’s choice of Harold MacMillan in 1957, albeit on the recommendation of the then Cabinet but nonetheless a selection that did not necessarily sit well with members of the parliamentary party. British Labour had always elected its leader.

In Britain, the title “Prime Minister” was used descriptively for some time before it was used officially. It was first recorded in an official public document in 1878 when Benjamin Disraeli signed the Treaty of Berlin. The first British Prime Minister formally appointed by the monarch with this title was Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (1905-1908). Surprisingly, the term first appeared in British legislation in 1917 as a schedule to an Act of Parliament and it was first used within the main body of a British parliamentary enactment in 1937.

As with British Prime Ministers at the time, in 1901 Edmund Barton was only the Australian Prime Minister by convention, courtesy and common use. Barton was officially appointed as the Minister of State for External Affairs. In the media of his day, Barton was variously referred to as both the Prime Minister and the Premier; however, it was not long before the first minister of the Commonwealth was exclusively referred to as the Prime Minister.

The Australian Prime Minister’s Department was created on 1 July 1911 during Andrew Fisher’s premiership. However, in what appears to have been a legal slip, it was not until 1913 that Joseph Cook was the first Prime Minister appointed to administer his own Department. Thus, formally at least, and contrary to the centenary of federation television campaign, Australia’s first Prime Minister was not Edmund Barton it was Joseph Cook.

Before federation, the first ministers of the six Australian colonies were often referred to as premiers (from the French, meaning “first”), a term that continues to be used for the first ministers of the Australian states. With the more recent grants of self-government, the first ministers in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are styled as Chief Ministers.

Today, the Australian Prime Minister is the chief adviser to the Queen and her representative in Australia, the Governor-General. The Prime Minister is also the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives, the head of the executive branch of government, and the chair of the Cabinet.

First among equals

Of all the ministers in a government, the Prime Minister is traditionally described as primus inter pares, a Latin phrase meaning first among equals. Originally this phrase may have been used to allay the petty jealousies of the other ministers and at the time it may have been convincing. However, it is no longer true. While the Prime Minister is unquestionably first, the other ministers are not his or her equals in status, power or public perception.

The growth of political parties and explosion of the mass media over the last century have strengthened the Prime Minister’s position against that of the other ministers. As a consequence of the strong party discipline in the Australian Parliament, the Prime Minister is a very powerful figure. He or she is far more powerful in respect of Australia than the US President is in respect of the United States. However, because our federal system separates powers between the states and the Commonwealth and because the (often hostile) Senate has stronger legislative powers and greater democratic legitimacy than the Westminster House of Lords, the Australian Prime Minister is not quite as powerful as his counterpart in the United Kingdom.

Another consequence of political parties is that general elections for parliament are in reality about the election of the Prime Minister. In the media and the public mind, federal elections for all members to the House of Representatives are cast as a choice between the Prime Minister and an alternative Prime Minister: the Leader of the Opposition. They are remembered as a series of titanic struggles between Howard and Beasley, Keating and Howard, Keating and Hewson, Hawke and Howard, Hawke and Peacock, Hawke and Fraser, Fraser and Hayden, Fraser and Whitlam, and so on.

This presidential tendency in Australian politics goes hand in hand with the growing attention of the media. Since 1968 when the Liberals chose Gorton over Hasluck because they thought Gorton the better television performer, sound media skills have been an important prerequisite for the job of Prime Minister. The media almost always focus on personalities as opposed to the underlying issues and policies.

Some suggest that in effect a Prime Minister has more votes than all of his or her Cabinet colleagues - the other ministers - put together. However, this power depends on the collective support for the Prime Minister within Cabinet and among his or her party colleagues in the parliament. In large measure, this support depends on the Prime Minister’s performance in the media, public opinion polls and ultimately at elections. A Prime Minister who has just won a landslide election victory has much more power or influence than a Prime Minister who is falling behind in the opinion polls and whose performance does not convince his party that he or she will win the next election.

Thus, while the Prime Minister has great power there are also restraints. With every decision, a Prime Minister must consider how the use of power will affect his or her support base. A Prime Minister cannot exercise power indefinitely without an eye for the consequences. The benefits of potential actions must be considered against the potential for negative media, a drop in public opinion polls, and the outcome of the next election.

Ultimately Prime Ministers face the sanction of party approval. Some commentators have expressed concern at the capacity of the parliament to hold the executive accountable for its actions. However, there is no doubt that a political party will jettison a Prime Minister with alacrity if they come to the view that another in the party is more likely to win the next general election. This occurred (with subsequent electoral success) with Hawke and Keating in 1991 and (without subsequent electoral success) with Gorton and McMahon in 1971.

The role

The role of the Prime Minister is not clearly defined. It flows in part from the twin roles of being the leader of the government and the leader of the majority political party (or coalition of parties) in the House of Representatives. As party leader, he or she is ultimately responsible for the party’s success in the opinion polls and at elections. As the head of the government, the Prime Minister is responsible for achieving overall policy objectives and the smooth operation of government. Sometimes these roles are in conflict, requiring the Prime Minister to blend sound policy and good politics in order to maintain the electoral stock of the government.

The Prime Minister’s role also flows from those functions that are uniquely his or hers by convention: allocating portfolios to ministers, dismissing ministers, selecting and dismissing governors-general, deciding the dates when Parliament will sit, setting the agenda for Cabinet meetings, and calling elections. For example, the Prime Minister can use the threat of an election to quell dissent within his or her party. According the Graham Richardson (1994), when Keating was challenging Hawke for the Prime Ministership, the greatest fear in the Keating camp was that Hawke would call a general election rather than allow the leadership question to be resolved in the party room.

The Prime Minister’s physical workload is gruelling. In addition to working 18 hour days, seven days a week, the Prime Minister must deal with relentless mass media attention, factional disagreements within his party, the mistakes and incompetence of individual ministers, turf wars between ministers, and the ambition of impatient colleagues who are keen for their own shot at the top job.

Appointment

By convention, the Governor-General appoints as Prime Minister the leader of the party (or coalition of parties) with the majority of seats in the House of Representatives. The Governor-General then appoints ministers and parliamentary secretaries on the advice of the Prime Minister. Each minister is put in charge of a government department, or an aspect of that department’s work. The Australian Constitution requires that each minister, including the Prime Minister, must be a Member of Parliament.

In the language of the US Constitution, the House of Representatives can be thought of as an electoral college, which chooses from its membership the Prime Minister. Although no formal vote is taken with the appointment of a Prime Minister, he or she is expected to resign if the House of Representatives pass a motion of no confidence or if his or her party loses its majority in that House following an election.

In practice, the parliamentarians from both houses who belong to the party or coalition with a majority in the House of Representatives select the Prime Minister. By convention, the Prime Minister must come from the House of Representatives. By tradition, Liberal Party Prime Ministers have complete discretion in both selecting their ministry for appointment and allocating portfolios. In contrast, the Parliamentary Labor Party votes for not just the Prime Minister but for the entire ministry. Once the ministry has been selected, the Labor Prime Minister then allocates portfolios to ministers at his discretion.

Want to find out more?