Treasury Portfolio Is Perfect Stepping Stone To The Top Job

by John Warhurst - Canberra Times

Most of the millions of words that have been written about the leadership of the Liberal Party concentrate on the relative individual merits of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Some public opinion surveys measure the relative popularity of the two men and find Peter Costello wanting.

Another approach is to concentrate on how well the position of Treasurer either advantages or disadvantages Costello in seeking promotion to PM.

One sleeping element in discussions is the comparison between Paul Keating and Costello. Costello's critics reckon that he shares some of the weaknesses of Keating. In a word, they think he has personality defects ("smirking", arrogance, and so on) that make him relatively unattractive, perhaps even unelectable, to the general public. Certainly the Labor Party seemed to think this at the last election. But the tactic of denigrating Costello fell absolutely flat.

Hidden deep within this comparison is the idea that being Treasurer is in itself a handicap. This argument runs as follows. Being Treasurer makes it harder to be popular and harder to have the necessary qualities to ultimately be a successful Prime Minister.

As a job, it makes enemies both within the party and in the general public because the Treasurer is often the one bringing bad economic news. Furthermore, the Treasurer is the one talking complicated, technical, economic terminology that few people can understand.

Journalist Peter Hartcher explained it this way in the Sydney Morning Herald. "A treasurer has limited scope for catching the national imagination or exciting the public's attention, what Paul Keating once called 'throwing the switch to vaudeville'."

In other words, Treasurers are forced to become boring technocrats. If you believe this then Costello is being held back by his position. That he would be better off if he was not Treasurer.

I don't accept this argument. The evidence to support it is limited. Keating had no trouble flicking the switch to vaudeville. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party should be the Treasurer. When deputy leaders don't take that position they are accused of being weak, as in the case of Michael Wooldridge for the Liberals or Jenny Macklin for Labor. Whatever the reasons for their choice of other portfolios, and they may have excellent other qualifications, they should take on Treasury. It is a missed opportunity.

Parties need their second best person in the portfolio because it is such a testing job and such a crucial element of the contest with their opposition in parliament.

Rather than being the kiss of death, the Treasury is a most advantageous portfolio from which to launch a bid for the top job. It is a platform with potential for real bounce. The advantages for the occupant are many. They were on display for all to see during this Budget week.

The Treasurer is given extensive media time. Other ministers would kill for the chance. Only the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition get equivalent time. The Treasurer is formally matched with the Leader of the Opposition who gives the speech in reply in parliament.

Far from being seriously constrained, the Treasurer is given a giant free kick on prime-time television to demonstrate how articulate, clever, funny and empathetic they are.

The Treasurer has the opportunity to develop a whole of government view. Furthermore, they are given the opportunity to show the whole electorate that they have a grasp on the whole of government operations.

Against these advantages there are some disadvantages. At times the Treasurer has to be tough and take responsibility for bad news. As the ABC put it on Tuesday night the Treasurer sometimes has to be "Treasurer Scrooge as well as Treasurer Tooth Fairy". But that certainly hasn't often been the case in recent years with this Government. The Treasurer also has to talk technical detail. This may mean some Treasurers being typecast as dull and boring. But it is more a problem of deficient personality rather than of the portfolio.

That leads on to the relative merits of other types of portfolios as platforms for the incumbent to reach the highest office. Compared to Treasury, no other portfolio has equivalent merits. That is why, other than making his experience more varied, other portfolios should hold no appeal for Costello. His problem in career terms is not his job but just that the PM has stayed on too long.

If Howard had lost the 1998 election Costello would have had a perfect background to become a fresh, yet experienced, Leader of the Opposition. If Howard had retired sometime after the 2001 election, likewise Costello would have been equally ready to go as Prime Minister. Other portfolios should hold no appeal for him. Foreign Affairs and Trade is the home of former leaders like Bill Hayden and Alexander Downer, and of perceived dilettantes like Andrew Peacock. It takes the minister abroad too much and is not seen to be the sort of tough domestic portfolio that an aspirant for the leadership needs.

Costello's immediate potential challengers within the Liberal Party are in Health (Tony Abbott) and Education (Brendan Nelson) as well as Downer in Foreign Affairs. What do these positions offer? Important portfolios as they are, they are narrower and have at least as many pitfalls. They offer the possibility of just as many enemies in the community. In terms of possible successes they offer less than Treasury.

Treasury is a better jumping off point for potential Prime Ministers than any other place. Costello should just hang in there.