Conventional wisdom says that ageing Liberal politicians must retire and pass the torch to a new generation of conservative warriors. Why should these old codgers hang around in parliament, the argument goes, when there is so much young talent ready to serve the party and nation?
In the run-up to the recent Liberal preselection for the federal seat of Bradfield and Peter Dutton's failed bid to win his party's nomination for the safe Gold Coast seat of McPherson, many commentators have called for the likes of Philip Ruddock, Bronwyn Bishop and Bill Heffernan -- all 66 years of age -- to stand aside, make room for aspiring parliamentarians and force some renewal in the federal Liberal party.
Let me say from the outset that it is certainly in my interests to encourage this way of thinking. After all, I am nonetheless unwilling to witness or permit Kevin Rudd's slow undoing of Liberal values, legacies and public policy agendas.
But there is a case for older and experienced politicians to remain on the national stage. For one thing, Ruddock, Bishop and Heffernan are only in their mid-sixties. I say "only", because they are spring chickens when compared with some international political giants.
Konrad Adenauer, the great post-war chancellor of West Germany, became leader at 73 and left office at 87. Charles de Gaulle and François Mitterand were French presidents for more than a decade until their late seventies. Ronald Reagan was inaugurated US president on the eve of his 70th birthday and, after defeating Soviet Communism and kick-starting a moribund economy, retired into the sunset two years shy of his 80th. (Who could forget the 1984 presidential debate when the Gipper mocked his 56-year-old Democrat rival Walter Mondale's "youth and inexperience"?)
Ayatollah Khomeini, 78, returned from exile to replace the overthrown Shah of Iran in 1979. For generations, China and India have benefitted from geriatric leaderships. Deng Xiaoping, for instance, was a stripling of 71 when he assumed power 30 years ago and spent the best part of two decades implementing a capitalist revolution that saved the People's Republic from collapse. Lee Kuan Yew, at 86, has been a leading political figure in Singapore since he became the island state's first Prime Minister half a century ago.
In Britain, several parliamentarians are well into their sixties and seventies. And age did not weary many great men of political history in the Old Dart. Winston Churchill was 66 when he became prime minister during the war (and PM again at 77 at the height of the Cold War). Viscount Palmerston, at 75, won his second election. And William Gladstone won his fourth term in 1892 at 82.
Bear all this in mind when beguiling voices tell you that age is a barrier to involvement and success in public life. Yet in Australia, being in your mid-sixties apparently makes you too old for the house or senate. And when judges turn 70, an age when most people still command excellent intellectual and observational powers, they are deemed officially senile and forced to retire.
So how to account for the widespread Australian pressure for public figures to retire in their mid-sixties? Some blame Canberra's generous social security system, which funds the health and welfare needs of a burgeoning retirement-age population. But I suspect another factor is at work: discrimination against the elderly, pure and simple.
The Western European welfare state is far more extravagant than that of Australia, and yet discrimination against the elderly in public life is not as deep-seated as it is here. Silvio Berlusconi is seven years older than Ruddock, Bishop and Heffernan. And it is widely held that the Italian leader's political problems have less to do with his age and more to do with his lust for women five decades his junior.
The irony is that Australia has not always been such an unfair place. Once upon a time, we placed a premium on experienced members of the body politic. In the mid-1960s, for example, the prime minister (Robert Menzies), the deputy prime minister (John McEwen) and the opposition leader (Arthur Calwell) were several years older than Ruddock, Bishop and Heffernan are today.
And yet discrimination against the elderly has since intensified, even though the average life expectancy for Australian men is five years higher than it was in the 1960s.
In recent years, Canberra has urged active pensioners to stay at work as a way of addressing a looming demographic crisis. This makes sense. It shows the political establishment understands the value of keeping older Australians employed. So why shouldn't politicians in their mid-sixties stay in their jobs without being constantly hassled about their age? After all, as the population grows older, elderly elected MPs and senators become more representative of their electorates.
To be sure, history is littered with examples of politicians who outstay their welcome. And it is certainly true that if the older and experienced politicians are good enough to remain in safe Liberal seats, then it stands to reason that they should also serve on the Opposition front bench. If the 69-year old House of Commons veteran Kenneth Clarke can return to the Tory front bench, as he did recently, why can't the 66-year-old Father of the House Ruddock return to the Coalition front bench?
On Sky News recently, John Howard compared Ruddock to "a good slip fieldsman". And indeed there is a lot to be said for the former attorney general and immigration minister: he's sound under pressure; he's an accomplished and flawless media performer; he's held in the highest esteem by virtually all ethnic groups across the nation; and having served 36 years in the House of Representatives, he is the most experienced MP. Bronwyn Bishop and Bill Heffernan also have good, albeit less impressive, credentials.
So why are these former ministers languishing on the back bench? The opposition leader should select them in the top team and make them fight in the trenches of parliamentary Question Time. If they refuse to move to the front bench, then perhaps there is a case to clear the way for younger warriors who have the passion and interest to make a more effective and high-profile contribution to public life.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment