Reflections of My Grandfather, Harold Holt

Today, December 17, marks 50 years since my Grandfather, Harold Holt, disappeared off Cheviot Beach in Victoria. While the nation was shocked that a Prime Minister could vanish in a heartbeat, my Grandmother, Zara, lost the love of her life and my father and uncles lost their dad at a relatively young age. The leader of the nation disappeared, but my family lost a husband and a dad. I never got to meet my dad’s dad, who has been a significant role model and influence in my life. While that created a distant, background sadness for me, this pales in to the harsh shock and deep loss my family felt on the 17^th of December 1967, and the days, weeks and years that followed.
I am deeply proud of my grandfather’s achievements. He was a genuine humanitarian with a profound empathy for others. I have seen my father display these traits over a lifetime. This is one of the many ways my grandfather has revealed himself to me. A great man does not have to be famous. I consider my father to be a great man for the way he greets people in the street, for the way he counsels a friend when life presses too hard and for his ability to make others feel listened to when they meet him. I can well imagine how such traits would be highly valued in the trenches of political life.
Harold’s achievements in abolishing the White Australia Policy and leading the referendum to allow the Federal Government to make laws for Indigenous people, which paved the way for land rights and gave significant recognition to the indigenous cause, were entirely consistent with the humanitarian he was. His succession from Menzies represents a unique event in Australian political history, and is another reminder that he was lost to the nation, and to the family, too soon.
I have been lucky enough to meet politicians throughout my life, and found them to be far more impressive, intelligent and interesting in real life then portrayed in the media. They certainly don’t do it for the money. Despite politicians earning significantly more than the minimum wage, airline pilots earn more that the Prime Minister, and Partners of big law firms earn more than five times the salary of a Members of Parliament. As one former member of Malcom Fraser’s Cabinet one said to me “People become politicians for one of two reasons, either they want to serve their country, or they love the swamp”. Ever since I heard this analogy, I find myself watching lead role players in today’s political theatre thinking “service or swamp?”.
In 1967, Australia was enjoying annual GDP growth rates of 6.3% compared with 2.8% in 2016. Australia was moving away from Britain, with Qantas dropping word “Empire” from its’ name and the word “British” was removed from Australian Passports. Harold brought Australia closer to Asia and was the first western leader to conduct a major tour of the region. He was far less formal than his predecessor, and courted a relationship with the press. As I consider Harold’s achievements, it prompts the question “What has changed in the political landscape when comparing then and now?”.
There are three key traits that have served the best Political leaders over decades and even centauries, but the relative importance of these traits has changed significantly. The three traits are firstly, achieving cut-through; secondly, forming quality of policy; and thirdly, the ability to generate ongoing support of colleagues, minor parties and independents. Robert Menzies was a master of all three traits. Paul Keating was also proficient. John Howard was good at the latter two, and became significantly better at the first trait over time. Kevin Rudd gained the leadership on cut-through, but did not achieve traction on policy or ongoing support of others.
Whilst these three traits remain relevant, Harold’s media universe involved navigating a less-intrusive reporting culture comprising a handful of newspapers, radio stations, and four black and white TV broadcast stations with Channels 7 and 10 being less than 4 years in operation. Today people have tuned out to an oversupply of messaging and politicians are put to the sword for any inconsistency over the course of their career.  This is a global phenomenon that leaves most Politicians in no-mans-land. The current standard play is to deliver three word slogans and soundbites with the aim of capturing the 15 second news grab. The problem is these messages become boring and meaningless, so voters have tuned out. Successful communicators today either rely on shock value, think Trump, Jacquie Lambie and Clive Palmer, or have exceptional personal charisma, such as Barrack Obama, Justin Trudeau or Emmanuel Macron.
In an environment where the electorate demands cut-through and rewards celebrity, this trait has become the most important ticket to play. Paul Keating and Jeff Kennett would have thrived in this universe, but would John Howard or John Cain have first risen to power in this environment? A cynical reading of this trait is we celebrate celebrity and entertainment, then leave it to pot-luck that the elected leader will deliver quality policy and gain the required enduring support of colleagues. A friend of mine recently commented that political parties should start looking to breakfast television as a potential hunting ground for future political stars.
Before Karl and ‘Kochie’ start printing up campaign banners, they may wish to consider how hard it is to achieve reform through Parliament in modern day Australia. Through Menzies, Hawke, Keating and Howard, Australia has a rich history of reformist governments. In his brief tenure, Harold Holt’s agenda on the white Australia policy and his decision to break with tradition and not devalue the dollar in line with the British pound, despite opposition from the National Party, demonstrated that had an appetite for both social and economic reform.
In more recent times, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard all systematically worked through a clear agenda of reform. With both Labor and Liberal Governments during this time, the public knew exactly what the Government was working on, from reforming the tax system, introducing national superannuation, the gun buy-back scheme, introducing the GST through to reform on the wharves. This approach gave the public a strong sense that, whether you agreed with the policy or not, the Government was hard at work.
In more recent times, the perception is that bold reform has become convoluted and stalled in the politics of division. A focus on opinion polls, the 24-hour news cycle, the melting of political capital, an overabundance of news, both real and fake, and increased factional infighting have all played their part in making even straightforward policy difficult to implement. The example of Same Sex Marriage highlights this point. A policy that received 62% support from the public, and carried 133 of the 150 Federal Electoral Divisions, had clear support from the Prime Minister, and which polls indicate had the majority of public support since June 2007, took years of back-room negotiating, obstructions and frustrations to both Labor and Liberal eras in what previously may have been dealt with by a reformist Government, but what leader since 2007 has been allowed to set the agenda?
Kevin Rudd ran in to issues of internal support in his first term. Julie Gillard juggled a government reliant on Independents. Tony Abbott’s honeymoon with the polls lasted less than 9 months according to Newspoll’s two-party preferred polls, compared with Kevin Rudd’s popularity honeymoon lasting over two years and John Howards’ lasting 19 months. Malcolm Turnbull has had a complicated Senate, and has attempted to push through legislation with a higher likelihood of passing, yet still has to navigate a treacherous path of negotiation with independents and minor parties. As one MP said to me recently “we used to negotiate on the basis of whether people agree or disagree with the proposed legislation. Now we just negotiate with personal agendas and egos”. Never was this more evident the Palmer United party voting down legislation they publicly supported with the purpose of destabilizing Tony Abbot.
The rise of the Independents coupled with more acrimonious party politics has led to a political environment that makes reformist actions of the past near-impossible.  The fact that Australia has had six changes of prime minister in the past 10 years, compared with four in the previous 32 years, hints that the job is simply harder than it once was, or at least harder to effect meaningful change.
So, what would Harold think of Australia today?
I think he would delight in the amazing multi-cultural society we live in. He would be proud of the role we play in international relations, especially within Asia. No doubt the strength of our economy, and the evolution of our dynamic, serviced-based financial system would amaze him. He would be aghast at the way the media portrays our leaders, and he would decry the divisions within the Liberal party, and beseech for greater cohesion within the broad church.
Overall, I think he would take great pride in the strong nation we have become over the past 50 years, and equally our family is exceptionally proud of the role his leadership has played in creating modern Australia.
 
Robert.Holt@atkearney.com
 
(+61) (0) 0400 132 139