The tenures of Prime Ministers Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard have had both positive and negative outcomes. Some of them have been more successful than others in establishing policies that have improved Australia’s economy and social welfare, while others have had more difficulties in providing a better situation for Australia. This essay will discuss the policies and actions that I support and do not support of the four prime ministers. As well, it will display the ranking of the four of them from best to worst.

Malcolm Fraser headed a Liberal-National Party coalition from 1975 to 1983. His main pronouncement was “Life isn’t meant to be easy”. He believed that Australia depended too much on public provisions, so therefore, he tried to reduce government and tried to only intervene habitually. The Fraser government found a solution to tackle inflation. They thought that if prices could be reduced and profits restored, then there would be more activity than before. They also thought that reducing government expenditure would help the public deficit as well as savings in the public sector, and therefore, interest rates would decrease leading to more private investment. Inflation declined during the Fraser government but in the same way, the number of unemployed people was greater than 400,000. The main disadvantage that I see with the Fraser government is that its policy wasonly focused on one of the problems that Australia was having at that time. The government focused entirely on inflation leaving unemployment and other problems forgotten. For a policy to be successful it must tackle various problems at the same time, a policy cannot tackle inflation without causing unemployment. Therefore, I think that the Fraser government would have been more efficient if the policies were not only aimed at inflation but at other problems as well.

Moreover, the Fraser government imposed restrictions on foreign investment so that they could finance the expansion on export industries. I support this action because I think that a country should strengthen its domestic market first before it can compete globally. By imposing restrictions on foreign investment, export industries have a greater chance of becoming stronger and more prepared to compete internationally later on. I also support Fraser’s vision of including human rights in his foreign policy, as well as his close relationships with America and China. However, unemployment and the breakout of wages ensured Prime Minister Fraser’s defeat in the 1983 elections.
In 1983, Bob Hawke was the new Labor Leader. He worked for the Australian Council of Trade Unions and during his leadership he insisted that it was necessary to have national reconciliation. Hawke’s government had a special relationship with unions. They negotiatedwith the Australian Council of Trade Unions so that workers would give up wage increases for job creation. I strongly support this action of Hawke’s government because it led to the creation of one and a half million new jobs and unemployment fell from 10% to 6%. As well, this government was successful in working a lot with union and business leaders, they restored public medical insurance and made improvements in social wage. Furthermore, another positive thing is that they created government programmes to guarantee that industries like steel and car production continued being reliable.

On the other hand, an action of the Hawke’s government that I do not support was that they did not give importance to the defense of the currency, allowing it to be set by the market instead. By 1986, the dollar lost 40% of its value. Net foreign debt was 30% of the national product and every fall in the exchange rate increased its cost, and as well exports were no longer having a reliable demand. This government had plans to reduce tariffs that protected local industries, and to reduce the control of wage fixation. I do not support this plan because they increased international competition in Australia when Australia’s industries were too weak and not ready to compete. Instead they should have protected their exports and their local markets. In my opinion, financial deregulation is beneficial until the markets areready to compete globally and gain successful outcomes.

National debt and the trade deficit increased so much during Hawke’s tenure that interest rates had to be increased. Interest rates reached 18% by 1989 which greatly affected entrepreneurs and small business. The actions of this government caused Australia to be dependent on foreign investment and vulnerable in cycles of boom and bust. It had lower growth rates, more poverty, more dependence on two incomes to survive and more inequality between rich and poor. Deregulation caused Australia to be more exposed and more vulnerable.

Paul Keating became prime minister in 1991. I support the competition policy that he established to increase the efficiency of public utilities by breaking up the authorities that were controlling the provisions of gas, electricity, transport and communication. I also support his vision of wanting to make Australia “competitive, outward looking and phobia free”. An achievement during his tenure was the expansion of APEC. Keating was successful in establishing regular gatherings of national leaders and persuaded President Clinton to become a member. I support his actions of creating better relations for Australia with other countries. By establishing regular gatherings, problems could be discussed by leaders more often and relationships could improve that would facilitate trade and commerce.
Keating lost appeal during the1990 recession, since the recession was caused by the government’s reliance on interest rates in a deregulated financial system and by the rise in mortgage payments which caused distress in the population. The people no longer saw the government as an “economic manager”.
John Howard became prime minister in 1996. He succeeded with his emphasis on national interest and with his slogan that the Coalition would govern “For All Of Us”. He established a policy of economic liberalism and social conservatism. His attention went to trade liberalization, to changes in the labor market to eliminate inefficiencies and uncompetitive practices, to the partial sale of Telstra which is the largest remaining public enterprise, and to the reduction of the public service. One of the actions that I support was that the government was successful in offsetting the reduced demand from Asian customers for Australian exports by new markets. Australia became attractive for new markets that took advantage of the falling value of the Australian dollar. As well, the Howard government established new programs for the unemployed that were called “work for the dole”, which required young unemployed to do community projects. It also increased income support to the workforce which was very beneficial.

Moreover, I support Howard’s vision of wanting Australians to feel “relaxed and comfortable.” He wanted his government to establishcommunity values. The Howard government was also successful in assigning the Reserve Bank to set interest rates that would keep inflation low and to keep interest rates low to promote growth. On the other hand, one negative thing was that he did not take blame for the removal of children from Aboriginal society, he rejected the findings of the Stolen Generation. As well, another negative thing was that he was not interested in having good relations with international organizations. He attended to only half the meetings of the South Pacific Forum, he was insensitive to the difficulties of Papua New Guinea, and he was critical of the United Nations Forum.
In my opinion, the best prime minister was Paul Keating because he wanted to make Australia more competitive and he wanted to improve the situation that Australia had been living during Prime Minister Hawke’s government. I find really beneficial that he wanted to improve relationships for Australia with other countries. I believe that to have successful policies, leaders around the world should meet regularly to discuss the disadvantages and advantages of various actions and how they will affect everyone, and I think that Keating was in some way trying to achieve this. Second in my ranking is Prime Minister John Howard because he was able to improve the situation for the unemployed in Australia. During his tenure, there were more programs for theunemployed and more income support as well. He was also good in attracting foreign markets. Third in the ranking is Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. I like that he included human rights and was not discriminatory in his policies, however, his problem was that he did not focused on tackling unemployment, instead unemployment was higher with his policy. Lastly, the least successful prime minister for me is Bob Hawke because Australia’s situation worsened a lot during his tenure. Unemployment was high, national debt increased, Australia was vulnerable and not able to compete internationally. He did not even know how to solve Australia’s problems at the end of his tenure.
In conclusion, we can see that Australia has had many different prime ministers that have established different polices in attempt to improve Australia’s situation. Like in every government, they all had successful and unsuccessful actions and policies that distinguish them and that make them unique. I believe that a successful prime minister should be one that focuses on tackling unemployment while maintaining inflation low, if both cannot be achieved then the government should balance which action is better to pursue and which one will bring more benefits to the population. A successful prime minister should also focus on strengthening domestic industries and on helping them compete internationally so that annual growth rate can be higher.