SDC Rewards Member Upgrade yours now
The Conversation

The Conversation

Moderator
Staff member
Jun 15, 2022
1,024
1,990
113
The ‘Forgettables’: 5 Australian Prime Ministers You May Not Know Much About

The idea of a “forgotten prime minister” may seem laughable. For Australian historians, it is the governed rather than the governors who need rescuing “from the enormous condescension of posterity” as the English historian E. P. Thompson famously put it.

Our First Nations histories especially were for too long silenced and concealed in what the anthropologist Bill Stanner called a “cult of forgetfulness practised on a national scale”.



Prime ministers, on the other hand, are stitched into the tapestry of national history thanks to extensive newspaper coverage, the dogged pursuits of political biographers, and the quest of archivists and librarians to collect their personal papers. Deceased leaders’ names adorn buildings and streets, federal electorates, and dedicated research centres, and in Harold Holt’s case, a memorial swimming pool.

But some, of course, are better known than others. So which prime ministers, if any, can be considered “forgotten” by contemporary Australia? And what does that act of forgetting reveal about our political culture? Commemorative rituals and opinion surveys suggest that some have very much receded from memory.

Here are a few prime ministers who deserve to be a little better known.

Edmund Barton 1901-03​


Screen Shot 2023-01-05 at 14.23.26.png
Edmund Barton, Australia’s first prime minister. National Archives of Australia


Barton was a hugely significant figure in his day. A leading advocate of federation, he was summoned by the Governor-General Lord Hopetoun (after a false start) to form the first Commonwealth government.

Between 1901 and 1903, Barton’s government, with the dynamic Alfred Deakin as its attorney-general, established some of the national institutions we now take for granted, such as the public service and the High Court. Barton and Deakin’s deeply racial vision of a White Australia was also enacted in legislation in these years.

Australia’s first prime minister (known to detractors as Tosspot Toby) helped to establish the machinery of federal government out of nothing. But this earned him no special place in Australian collective memory. Resigning in 1903, he spent the remainder of his life as a reticent statesman and High Court judge.



George Reid 1904-05​

Screen Shot 2023-01-05 at 14.24.54.png
George Reid, a political enemy of Barton’s, held office from 1904-05. Museum of Australian Democracy

Reid was a political opponent of Barton’s. The defining issue of the early Commonwealth was tariff policy, and all other matters – industrial development, employment, and individual liberty – were refracted through the “tariff question”. Reid, a former New South Wales premier who had earned the moniker “Yes-No Reid” for his prevarications during the earlier federation debates, was a devout advocate for and leader of the Free Trade movement.

Reid was summoned to form a government in August 1904. Hamstrung by his lack of a parliamentary majority, he remarkably passed the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. This was core business for the early Commonwealth, and two previous ministries had failed to secure it. But Reid’s attempts to settle the tariff question with Deakin’s Protectionists failed, and his ministry was defeated in parliament in July 1905.



Joseph Cook 1913-14​


Screen Shot 2023-01-05 at 14.26.27.png
Joseph Cook, together with Reid, was instrumental in establishing the two-party system that continues today. National Archives of Australia

Out of office, Reid and his Free Trade colleague Joseph Cook played a crucial role in making the two-party system that endures today. Whatever their differences with Deakin and the protectionists, Reid and Cook (himself a former Labor MP in New South Wales) saw the rising Australian Labor Party as the real enemy.

Reid travelled the country establishing anti-socialist leagues and building the groundwork for a united anti-Labor Party. When the tariff schedule was finally settled in 1908, and the mutual animosity between Deakin and Reid seemed the only barrier to a Liberal fusion, the latter sacrificed himself and resigned so that the former could join forces with Cook on his own terms.

In 1913, Cook led the new Commonwealth Liberal Party to a federal election, winning by the narrowest of margins. He oversaw the opening weeks of the Great War the following year, committing 20,000 Australian troops and the Australian Navy to Britain, but soon lost power in Australia’s first double dissolution election.



Stanley Melbourne Bruce 1923-29​

After the war, the task of national leadership fell to Stanley Bruce, a young businessman and ex-serviceman from Melbourne. In 1923, as leader of the non-Labor forces (now reconstituted as the Nationalist Party), Bruce formed government with Earle Page’s Country Party (forerunner of today’s rural National Party). In doing so, Frank Bongiorno has recently explained, Bruce and Page ‘inaugurated the Coalition tradition on the conservative side of Australian federal politics’.

Screen Shot 2023-01-05 at 14.27.52.png
Stanley Melbourne Bruce (pictured with his wife Ethel) had the task of leading the country after the first world war. National Archives of Australia

Bruce’s government was ambitious for Australia in the “roaring ‘20s”. He envisioned a future underscored by British migrants, British money and imperial markets. In power for six years, he presided over the creation of the Loans Council and the federal parliament’s move from Melbourne to Canberra in 1927.

But like others before him, he came unstuck on the issue of centralised arbitration. His attempt to abolish the federal arbitration court (with a view to restraining wage growth) saw his government defeated and his own seat lost in the 1929 election.



Arthur Fadden 1941​


Screen Shot 2023-01-05 at 14.29.11.png
Arthur Fadden was chosen to lead his party after Robert Menzies resigned. National Archives of Australia

In the early 1930s, conservatives once again reorganised in the form of the United Australia Party, and dominated politics for the ensuing decade. But by 1941, after two years of wartime leadership, the young leader Robert Menzies appeared to falter. His colleagues disliked his brisk manner and the public lacked confidence in his government’s war efforts. A hung parliament after the 1940 election, in which two Independents held the balance, confirmed this. With his position untenable, Menzies resigned in August 1941 and the coalition unanimously chose Fadden, the Country Party leader, to replace him.

“Affable Artie” was a widely respected figure and apparently the only one who could hold together a decade-old government too consumed by infighting to meet the demands of the moment. His premiership lasted just 40 days, at which point the Independents offered John Curtin and Labor their support. The sole Country Party leader to become prime minister on a non-caretaker basis, Fadden was one of a small handful of men to lead the nation in a global war.



Australia and Its Forgettables​

Why is it that these five prime ministers are largely absent from national memory? Four factors seem particularly significant.

First, contemporary Australian political discourse offers only a shallow sense of history. Political reporting rarely reaches for historical depth, and when it does, the second world war tends to be the outer limit.

Moreover, when Australians are asked to rank their prime ministers and select a “best PM”, they rarely reach beyond living memory.

The federation generation, overshadowed by the first world war, fare especially poorly. In the 1990s, with the centenary of federation fast approaching, surveys revealed that Australians knew less about its federal founders than they did about America’s 'founding fathers’. What kind of country, the civics experts implored, could forget the name of its first prime minister? Tosspot Toby was no match for Simpson and his donkey.

Second, Australians prefer to think of their political history in terms of heroes and villains (often embodied by the same individuals). Those binary roles require gregariousness, dynamism, some controversy, and the occasional serving of larrikinism. “Tall poppy syndrome” notwithstanding, partisan heroes like Menzies and Gough Whitlam, or infamous rats such as Billy Hughes, make for easy storytelling.

The forgettables are more often reserved, restrained or even polite characters. The Primitive Methodist Joseph Cook was “solemn and humourless”. The patrician Bruce was judged “too aloof and reserved to be an Australian”. And Frank Forde, in his old age, maintained that all of his colleagues and opponents had been “outstanding” and “capable men” for whom he had only “friendly feeling”. This is not exactly the stuff of masculine political legend.

Alfred Deakin has tended to absorb the historical limelight and cast long shadows over his contemporaries, not least because he furnished historians and biographers with rich personal papers. (Barton scrupulously destroyed most of his). But as Sean Scalmer has argued, we ought not to overlook the influence of Deakin’s contemporaries in the making of Australian politics as we know it.

Screen Shot 2023-01-05 at 14.30.54.png

Alfred Deakin (front row, second from right) has tended to cast a long shadow over his contemporaries.
Australian Parliamentary Library

Third, prime ministers are rendered immemorable if they were judged to be temporary, or presiding over some kind of interregnum. Australians have valorised the longevity and stability of Menzies and Howard, or the sense of epochal change that accompanied Whitlam and Hawke. Men like Reid, Cook and Fadden seem transitory in comparison.

Fourth, public memory has often depended on the sponsorship of major parties and their affiliated scribes and institutes. The corollary is that those who preceded the two-party system are harder to commemorate. Labor has been excellent at proselytising its great leaders and their great reforms, and demonising the rats and renegades. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, has struggled to memorialise its antecedents and influences (Deakin perhaps excepted). Menzies and Howard predominate in the collective Liberal psyche, and Liberal forerunners from Barton to Bruce rarely get a look-in.

This article was first published on The Conversation, and was written by Joshua Black, PhD Candidate, School of History, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's sad to see how many Australians have no idea who our former Prime Ministers were.

If someone asked an Australian who was our first Prime Minister they wouldn't be able to answer.

Maybe they should bring Australian history as a compulsory subject to be taught in Prinary school.

I stayed at the Hydro Majestic in Medlow Bath Katoomba , which is supposed to be the most haunted Hotel in Australia.
This is the Hotel that our first Prime Minister passed away in

Death occurred at the Hydro Majestic, Medlow Bath, before he left the bathroom after taking his morning bath. Heart failure is given as the cause, but he had been in indifferent health for some time.

Supposedly, ghosts still haunt its interior (one could be Australia’s first prime minister Sir Edmund Barton, who died from heart failure here in 1920). But the Hydro is perhaps most haunted by Foy himself.
 
Last edited:
I don’t intend this comment to be inflammatory in any way. I’m simply quoting a fact. Under no definition of the word ‘nation’, can this word ever be used to describe our indigenous.

The word refers to a country which has a government, a Constitution, common traditions and a common language. A nation is made up of people working together to improve their lives. They do this by cooperating with each other. Most of those living in a nation realise that the best way to coexist is by maintaining friendly relations with those around them. It’s done by recognising that everyone has the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else and respecting that.

Australia’s Indigenous fulfil none of those criteria. When European settlement began, there were more than 300 disparate tribes wandering the country and each had its own traditions and language. If tribes ran across each other, it was far more likely that each would be greeted with a hail of spears, rather than a welcome to country, and even that is not traditional. It was hastily concocted by Ernie Dingo and a mate when a visiting sporting team from the Cook Islands refused to play until they were welcomed to country.

In describing our indigenous, a far more appropriate term would be 'First People'.
 
Surely everyone knows who Australia’s first Prime Minister was! It’s taught in school. At least it was taught in the school where I worked, and where my children attended. My grade 5 grandson is learning at the moment about democracy, including our political system, laws, federation and the like, and he could tell me who our first prime minister was. I do agree about the other four on your list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leanne D and Ricci
Surely everyone knows who Australia’s first Prime Minister was! It’s taught in school. At least it was taught in the school where I worked, and where my children attended. My grade 5 grandson is learning at the moment about democracy, including our political system, laws, federation and the like, and he could tell me who our first prime minister was. I do agree about the other four on your list.
I think there was a gap in which they taught this. My 18 year old knows but it's a question in our trivia games.

My 15 year old or 14 year old granddaughter's couldn't tell me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ricci
I don’t intend this comment to be inflammatory in any way. I’m simply quoting a fact. Under no definition of the word ‘nation’, can this word ever be used to describe our indigenous.

The word refers to a country which has a government, a Constitution, common traditions and a common language. A nation is made up of people working together to improve their lives. They do this by cooperating with each other. Most of those living in a nation realise that the best way to coexist is by maintaining friendly relations with those around them. It’s done by recognising that everyone has the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else and respecting that.

Australia’s Indigenous fulfil none of those criteria. When European settlement began, there were more than 300 disparate tribes wandering the country and each had its own traditions and language. If tribes ran across each other, it was far more likely that each would be greeted with a hail of spears, rather than a welcome to country, and even that is not traditional. It was hastily concocted by Ernie Dingo and a mate when a visiting sporting team from the Cook Islands refused to play until they were welcomed to country.

In describing our indigenous, a far more appropriate term would be 'First People'.
sorry, Joydie, but you are terribly wrong. There's abundant evidence that First Nation Australians FREQUENTLY gathered in places, all over this Continent, which has shocked and astounded many people, like yourself. The evidence is in locations ALL OVER AUSTRALIA, in the Rock Art and First Nations traditional Celebrations. About 15 years ago, one such MEETING place was FINALLY recognised and acknowledge, near to Mt Annan, just south of Sydney.

The EVIDENCE, you ask? TREES, shrubs and various plants that were brought from locations as far North as Cape York and as far south as Melbourne. Purposefully brought to the 'Meeting Place'. Yandel'ora is the name the Dharawal people gave to Mount Annan, meaning 'place of peace between peoples'.

These plants were NOT moved to this location during the occupation of the Whites, but have been PROVEN to have been purposefully BROUGHT to this location hundreds and hundreds of years ago, as I said, PRIOR to white colonization.

If people, like yourself, took the time to read about the Culture and Life of our Indigenous First "NATION" peoples, they would discover the rich and diverse way they Governed THEMSELVES and how disputes, large and small, were settled quickly and amicably amongst themselves.
 
I don’t intend this comment to be inflammatory in any way. I’m simply quoting a fact. Under no definition of the word ‘nation’, can this word ever be used to describe our indigenous.

The word refers to a country which has a government, a Constitution, common traditions and a common language. A nation is made up of people working together to improve their lives. They do this by cooperating with each other. Most of those living in a nation realise that the best way to coexist is by maintaining friendly relations with those around them. It’s done by recognising that everyone has the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else and respecting that.

Australia’s Indigenous fulfil none of those criteria. When European settlement began, there were more than 300 disparate tribes wandering the country and each had its own traditions and language. If tribes ran across each other, it was far more likely that each would be greeted with a hail of spears, rather than a welcome to country, and even that is not traditional. It was hastily concocted by Ernie Dingo and a mate when a visiting sporting team from the Cook Islands refused to play until they were welcomed to country.

In describing our indigenous, a far more appropriate term would be 'First People'.
I do not understand how they can be referred to as " First Nation. They were not a Nation but a bunch of divided tribes, with different languages fighting and killing each other.
 
I don’t intend this comment to be inflammatory in any way. I’m simply quoting a fact. Under no definition of the word ‘nation’, can this word ever be used to describe our indigenous.

The word refers to a country which has a government, a Constitution, common traditions and a common language. A nation is made up of people working together to improve their lives. They do this by cooperating with each other. Most of those living in a nation realise that the best way to coexist is by maintaining friendly relations with those around them. It’s done by recognising that everyone has the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else and respecting that.

Australia’s Indigenous fulfil none of those criteria. When European settlement began, there were more than 300 disparate tribes wandering the country and each had its own traditions and language. If tribes ran across each other, it was far more likely that each would be greeted with a hail of spears, rather than a welcome to country, and even that is not traditional. It was hastily concocted by Ernie Dingo and a mate when a visiting sporting team from the Cook Islands refused to play until they were welcomed to country.

In describing our indigenous, a far more appropriate term would be 'First People'.
I don’t intend this comment to be inflammatory in any way. I’m simply quoting a fact. Under no definition of the word ‘nation’, can this word ever be used to describe our indigenous.

The word refers to a country which has a government, a Constitution, common traditions and a common language. A nation is made up of people working together to improve their lives. They do this by cooperating with each other. Most of those living in a nation realise that the best way to coexist is by maintaining friendly relations with those around them. It’s done by recognising that everyone has the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else and respecting that.

Australia’s Indigenous fulfil none of those criteria. When European settlement began, there were more than 300 disparate tribes wandering the country and each had its own traditions and language. If tribes ran across each other, it was far more likely that each would be greeted with a hail of spears, rather than a welcome to country, and even that is not traditional. It was hastily concocted by Ernie Dingo and a mate when a visiting sporting team from the Cook Islands refused to play until they were welcomed to country.

In describing our indigenous, a far more appropriate term would be 'First People'.
Why is it called the First Nation's people, I would have thought it would be called Nation's first people. Was this the First Nation ever?
 
sorry, Joydie, but you are terribly wrong. There's abundant evidence that First Nation Australians FREQUENTLY gathered in places, all over this Continent, which has shocked and astounded many people, like yourself. The evidence is in locations ALL OVER AUSTRALIA, in the Rock Art and First Nations traditional Celebrations. About 15 years ago, one such MEETING place was FINALLY recognised and acknowledge, near to Mt Annan, just south of Sydney.

The EVIDENCE, you ask? TREES, shrubs and various plants that were brought from locations as far North as Cape York and as far south as Melbourne. Purposefully brought to the 'Meeting Place'. Yandel'ora is the name the Dharawal people gave to Mount Annan, meaning 'place of peace between peoples'.

These plants were NOT moved to this location during the occupation of the Whites, but have been PROVEN to have been purposefully BROUGHT to this location hundreds and hundreds of years ago, as I said, PRIOR to white colonization.

If people, like yourself, took the time to read about the Culture and Life of our Indigenous First "NATION" peoples, they would discover the rich and diverse way they Governed THEMSELVES and how disputes, large and small, were settled quickly and amicably amongst themselves.
If you look at the definition of a nation, you will see that the Australian aborigines were not a nation at all. They were a collection of different tribes which did not even share a common language. Unlike the North American Indians, for example, the Sioux, who were a confederation of different tribes such as the Lakota, Oglala, Brule, Miniconju, Yankton, Santee etc were all a confederation of the Sioux Nation. Collectively they were referred to as Lakota and they were closely allied and tribal chiefs would speak for all Sioux hence one could say they had a form of government. The Apaches were similarly a confederation of different tribes of the Apache nation. They are just a couple of examples. The Australian aborigines had no confederations. Tribes had their own territories the borders of which they defined with geographical features like mountains, rivers, etc. They were not even nomadic except within their own boundaries and as far as I can ascertain they did not commonly mix together with other tribes except perhaps for purposes of a bit of trade of some sort but in fact encroachment by one tribe upon the territory of another could result in violence. Referring to the Australian Aboriginals as first nation is entirely incorrect and is a term taken from Canada's reference to their indigenous people who, as I pointed, out were confederations of tribes and can be referred to as nations.
Putting one thing and another together, I really do think it is past the time when this country should get back to proper realities and in more ways than one.
 
I do not understand how they can be referred to as " First Nation. They were not a Nation but a bunch of divided tribes, with different languages fighting and killing each other.
It's a very sad thing to say, but the degree of ignorance that 'white' Australians SHOW about their knowledge of our Indigenous FIRST NATION people is gob-smacking! Never, at any time in the past more than 60,000 years, have our First NATION peoples been MORE fractured to the extent that the colonizing white's have done so.

I am a member of the Wiradjuri people, the largest Nation of First Australians and despite the invading Colonizers BEST efforts to extinguish us and integrate us into their culture, we have remained. Diminished in number, but still here.

As I explained to Joydie, There's abundant evidence that our First Nation Australians FREQUENTLY gathered in places, all over this Continent, which has shocked and astounded many people, like yourself. The evidence is in locations ALL OVER AUSTRALIA, in the Rock Art, in their ORAL history which has been PROVEN to be more ACCURATE and correct than the written history from other Countries (History is written by the Victor, not the loser) , and from our First Nations traditional Celebrations. About 15 years ago, one such MEETING place was FINALLY recognised and acknowledge, near to Mt Annan, just south of Sydney.

The EVIDENCE, you ask? TREES, shrubs and various plants that were brought from locations as far North as Cape York and as far south as Melbourne. Purposefully brought to the 'Meeting Place'. Yandel'ora is the name the Dharawal people gave to Mount Annan, meaning 'place of peace between peoples'.
 
Why is it called the First Nation's people, I would have thought it would be called Nation's first people. Was this the First Nation ever?
to answer your last question first, we can not know the answer to that question JayEdGeep. Reason why? Over the past 60,000 years and more, there have been at least a DOZEN catastrophic events that have hit our Earth and wiped out almost EVERY living thing on this Planet, NOT just the dinosaurs! But our Indigenous First Nation People survived these events and RECORDED them in their Oral History and their Rock Art!?

Paleontologists and Archaeologists LOVE to talk about 'things' they have dug up from " OVER 2,000 years ago... or even 3,000 !" ignoring the facts that 'civilization' is possibly many, MANY more 1,000's of years more ANCIENT than their small minds are able to comprehend!

A few years ago, my son was an underground diamond driller for deBears, up in the Arctic Circle, and from one mile down, he brought to the surface a piece of wood that was later dated to being 50 million years old! It WAS NOT petrified! It looked and felt like it was just felled. The Earth holds Her secrets close to her chest.

So back to your 1st question - Our First Nation people MIGHT have actually been the Nation's first people - or not! we can NEVER know the answer. I fully recommend Tim Flannery's book "The Future Eaters". I know you will find it riveting and full of answers for more of your questions I know that you have.
P.S Please vote 'yes' and give us back our Voice <3
 
The ‘Forgettables’: 5 Australian Prime Ministers You May Not Know Much About

The idea of a “forgotten prime minister” may seem laughable. For Australian historians, it is the governed rather than the governors who need rescuing “from the enormous condescension of posterity” as the English historian E. P. Thompson famously put it.

Our First Nations histories especially were for too long silenced and concealed in what the anthropologist Bill Stanner called a “cult of forgetfulness practised on a national scale”.



Prime ministers, on the other hand, are stitched into the tapestry of national history thanks to extensive newspaper coverage, the dogged pursuits of political biographers, and the quest of archivists and librarians to collect their personal papers. Deceased leaders’ names adorn buildings and streets, federal electorates, and dedicated research centres, and in Harold Holt’s case, a memorial swimming pool.

But some, of course, are better known than others. So which prime ministers, if any, can be considered “forgotten” by contemporary Australia? And what does that act of forgetting reveal about our political culture? Commemorative rituals and opinion surveys suggest that some have very much receded from memory.

Here are a few prime ministers who deserve to be a little better known.

Edmund Barton 1901-03​


View attachment 11213
Edmund Barton, Australia’s first prime minister. National Archives of Australia


Barton was a hugely significant figure in his day. A leading advocate of federation, he was summoned by the Governor-General Lord Hopetoun (after a false start) to form the first Commonwealth government.

Between 1901 and 1903, Barton’s government, with the dynamic Alfred Deakin as its attorney-general, established some of the national institutions we now take for granted, such as the public service and the High Court. Barton and Deakin’s deeply racial vision of a White Australia was also enacted in legislation in these years.

Australia’s first prime minister (known to detractors as Tosspot Toby) helped to establish the machinery of federal government out of nothing. But this earned him no special place in Australian collective memory. Resigning in 1903, he spent the remainder of his life as a reticent statesman and High Court judge.



George Reid 1904-05​

View attachment 11214
George Reid, a political enemy of Barton’s, held office from 1904-05. Museum of Australian Democracy

Reid was a political opponent of Barton’s. The defining issue of the early Commonwealth was tariff policy, and all other matters – industrial development, employment, and individual liberty – were refracted through the “tariff question”. Reid, a former New South Wales premier who had earned the moniker “Yes-No Reid” for his prevarications during the earlier federation debates, was a devout advocate for and leader of the Free Trade movement.

Reid was summoned to form a government in August 1904. Hamstrung by his lack of a parliamentary majority, he remarkably passed the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. This was core business for the early Commonwealth, and two previous ministries had failed to secure it. But Reid’s attempts to settle the tariff question with Deakin’s Protectionists failed, and his ministry was defeated in parliament in July 1905.



Joseph Cook 1913-14​


View attachment 11215
Joseph Cook, together with Reid, was instrumental in establishing the two-party system that continues today. National Archives of Australia

Out of office, Reid and his Free Trade colleague Joseph Cook played a crucial role in making the two-party system that endures today. Whatever their differences with Deakin and the protectionists, Reid and Cook (himself a former Labor MP in New South Wales) saw the rising Australian Labor Party as the real enemy.

Reid travelled the country establishing anti-socialist leagues and building the groundwork for a united anti-Labor Party. When the tariff schedule was finally settled in 1908, and the mutual animosity between Deakin and Reid seemed the only barrier to a Liberal fusion, the latter sacrificed himself and resigned so that the former could join forces with Cook on his own terms.

In 1913, Cook led the new Commonwealth Liberal Party to a federal election, winning by the narrowest of margins. He oversaw the opening weeks of the Great War the following year, committing 20,000 Australian troops and the Australian Navy to Britain, but soon lost power in Australia’s first double dissolution election.



Stanley Melbourne Bruce 1923-29​

After the war, the task of national leadership fell to Stanley Bruce, a young businessman and ex-serviceman from Melbourne. In 1923, as leader of the non-Labor forces (now reconstituted as the Nationalist Party), Bruce formed government with Earle Page’s Country Party (forerunner of today’s rural National Party). In doing so, Frank Bongiorno has recently explained, Bruce and Page ‘inaugurated the Coalition tradition on the conservative side of Australian federal politics’.

View attachment 11216
Stanley Melbourne Bruce (pictured with his wife Ethel) had the task of leading the country after the first world war. National Archives of Australia

Bruce’s government was ambitious for Australia in the “roaring ‘20s”. He envisioned a future underscored by British migrants, British money and imperial markets. In power for six years, he presided over the creation of the Loans Council and the federal parliament’s move from Melbourne to Canberra in 1927.

But like others before him, he came unstuck on the issue of centralised arbitration. His attempt to abolish the federal arbitration court (with a view to restraining wage growth) saw his government defeated and his own seat lost in the 1929 election.



Arthur Fadden 1941​


View attachment 11217
Arthur Fadden was chosen to lead his party after Robert Menzies resigned. National Archives of Australia

In the early 1930s, conservatives once again reorganised in the form of the United Australia Party, and dominated politics for the ensuing decade. But by 1941, after two years of wartime leadership, the young leader Robert Menzies appeared to falter. His colleagues disliked his brisk manner and the public lacked confidence in his government’s war efforts. A hung parliament after the 1940 election, in which two Independents held the balance, confirmed this. With his position untenable, Menzies resigned in August 1941 and the coalition unanimously chose Fadden, the Country Party leader, to replace him.

“Affable Artie” was a widely respected figure and apparently the only one who could hold together a decade-old government too consumed by infighting to meet the demands of the moment. His premiership lasted just 40 days, at which point the Independents offered John Curtin and Labor their support. The sole Country Party leader to become prime minister on a non-caretaker basis, Fadden was one of a small handful of men to lead the nation in a global war.



Australia and Its Forgettables​

Why is it that these five prime ministers are largely absent from national memory? Four factors seem particularly significant.

First, contemporary Australian political discourse offers only a shallow sense of history. Political reporting rarely reaches for historical depth, and when it does, the second world war tends to be the outer limit.

Moreover, when Australians are asked to rank their prime ministers and select a “best PM”, they rarely reach beyond living memory.

The federation generation, overshadowed by the first world war, fare especially poorly. In the 1990s, with the centenary of federation fast approaching, surveys revealed that Australians knew less about its federal founders than they did about America’s 'founding fathers’. What kind of country, the civics experts implored, could forget the name of its first prime minister? Tosspot Toby was no match for Simpson and his donkey.

Second, Australians prefer to think of their political history in terms of heroes and villains (often embodied by the same individuals). Those binary roles require gregariousness, dynamism, some controversy, and the occasional serving of larrikinism. “Tall poppy syndrome” notwithstanding, partisan heroes like Menzies and Gough Whitlam, or infamous rats such as Billy Hughes, make for easy storytelling.

The forgettables are more often reserved, restrained or even polite characters. The Primitive Methodist Joseph Cook was “olemn and humourless”. The patrician Bruce was judged “too aloof and reserved to be an Australian”. And Frank Forde, in his old age, maintained that all of his colleagues and opponents had been “outstanding” and “capable men” for whom he had only “friendly feeling”. This is not exactly the stuff of masculine political legend.

Alfred Deakin has tended to absorb the historical limelight and cast long shadows over his contemporaries, not least because he furnished historians and biographers with rich personal papers. (Barton scrupulously destroyed most of his). But as Sean Scalmer has argued, we ought not to overlook the influence of Deakin’s contemporaries in the making of Australian politics as we know it.


View attachment 11218

Alfred Deakin (front row, second from right) has tended to cast a long shadow over his contemporaries.
Australian Parliamentary Library

Third, prime ministers are rendered immemorable if they were judged to be temporary, or presiding over some kind of interregnum. Australians have valorised the longevity and stability of Menzies and Howard, or the sense of epochal change that accompanied Whitlam and Hawke. Men like Reid, Cook and Fadden seem transitory in comparison.

Fourth, public memory has often depended on the sponsorship of major parties and their affiliated scribes and institutes. The corollary is that those who preceded the two-party system are harder to commemorate. Labor has been excellent at proselytising its great leaders and their great reforms, and demonising the rats and renegades. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, has struggled to memorialise its antecedents and influences (Deakin perhaps excepted). Menzies and Howard predominate in the collective Liberal psyche, and Liberal forerunners from Barton to Bruce rarely get a look-in.

This article was first published on The Conversation, and was written by Joshua Black, PhD Candidate, School of History, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University
when I was at school this was not taught properly if at all i don't know about now but our system needs a big overhaul our history should be taught from the first day till the last day. pre white settlement and after white settlement all the good and the bad so we know what has happened and so we can remember
 
The ‘Forgettables’: 5 Australian Prime Ministers You May Not Know Much About

The idea of a “forgotten prime minister” may seem laughable. For Australian historians, it is the governed rather than the governors who need rescuing “from the enormous condescension of posterity” as the English historian E. P. Thompson famously put it.

Our First Nations histories especially were for too long silenced and concealed in what the anthropologist Bill Stanner called a “cult of forgetfulness practised on a national scale”.



Prime ministers, on the other hand, are stitched into the tapestry of national history thanks to extensive newspaper coverage, the dogged pursuits of political biographers, and the quest of archivists and librarians to collect their personal papers. Deceased leaders’ names adorn buildings and streets, federal electorates, and dedicated research centres, and in Harold Holt’s case, a memorial swimming pool.

But some, of course, are better known than others. So which prime ministers, if any, can be considered “forgotten” by contemporary Australia? And what does that act of forgetting reveal about our political culture? Commemorative rituals and opinion surveys suggest that some have very much receded from memory.

Here are a few prime ministers who deserve to be a little better known.

Edmund Barton 1901-03​


View attachment 11213
Edmund Barton, Australia’s first prime minister. National Archives of Australia


Barton was a hugely significant figure in his day. A leading advocate of federation, he was summoned by the Governor-General Lord Hopetoun (after a false start) to form the first Commonwealth government.

Between 1901 and 1903, Barton’s government, with the dynamic Alfred Deakin as its attorney-general, established some of the national institutions we now take for granted, such as the public service and the High Court. Barton and Deakin’s deeply racial vision of a White Australia was also enacted in legislation in these years.

Australia’s first prime minister (known to detractors as Tosspot Toby) helped to establish the machinery of federal government out of nothing. But this earned him no special place in Australian collective memory. Resigning in 1903, he spent the remainder of his life as a reticent statesman and High Court judge.



George Reid 1904-05​

View attachment 11214
George Reid, a political enemy of Barton’s, held office from 1904-05. Museum of Australian Democracy

Reid was a political opponent of Barton’s. The defining issue of the early Commonwealth was tariff policy, and all other matters – industrial development, employment, and individual liberty – were refracted through the “tariff question”. Reid, a former New South Wales premier who had earned the moniker “Yes-No Reid” for his prevarications during the earlier federation debates, was a devout advocate for and leader of the Free Trade movement.

Reid was summoned to form a government in August 1904. Hamstrung by his lack of a parliamentary majority, he remarkably passed the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. This was core business for the early Commonwealth, and two previous ministries had failed to secure it. But Reid’s attempts to settle the tariff question with Deakin’s Protectionists failed, and his ministry was defeated in parliament in July 1905.



Joseph Cook 1913-14​


View attachment 11215
Joseph Cook, together with Reid, was instrumental in establishing the two-party system that continues today. National Archives of Australia

Out of office, Reid and his Free Trade colleague Joseph Cook played a crucial role in making the two-party system that endures today. Whatever their differences with Deakin and the protectionists, Reid and Cook (himself a former Labor MP in New South Wales) saw the rising Australian Labor Party as the real enemy.

Reid travelled the country establishing anti-socialist leagues and building the groundwork for a united anti-Labor Party. When the tariff schedule was finally settled in 1908, and the mutual animosity between Deakin and Reid seemed the only barrier to a Liberal fusion, the latter sacrificed himself and resigned so that the former could join forces with Cook on his own terms.

In 1913, Cook led the new Commonwealth Liberal Party to a federal election, winning by the narrowest of margins. He oversaw the opening weeks of the Great War the following year, committing 20,000 Australian troops and the Australian Navy to Britain, but soon lost power in Australia’s first double dissolution election.



Stanley Melbourne Bruce 1923-29​

After the war, the task of national leadership fell to Stanley Bruce, a young businessman and ex-serviceman from Melbourne. In 1923, as leader of the non-Labor forces (now reconstituted as the Nationalist Party), Bruce formed government with Earle Page’s Country Party (forerunner of today’s rural National Party). In doing so, Frank Bongiorno has recently explained, Bruce and Page ‘inaugurated the Coalition tradition on the conservative side of Australian federal politics’.

View attachment 11216
Stanley Melbourne Bruce (pictured with his wife Ethel) had the task of leading the country after the first world war. National Archives of Australia

Bruce’s government was ambitious for Australia in the “roaring ‘20s”. He envisioned a future underscored by British migrants, British money and imperial markets. In power for six years, he presided over the creation of the Loans Council and the federal parliament’s move from Melbourne to Canberra in 1927.

But like others before him, he came unstuck on the issue of centralised arbitration. His attempt to abolish the federal arbitration court (with a view to restraining wage growth) saw his government defeated and his own seat lost in the 1929 election.



Arthur Fadden 1941​


View attachment 11217
Arthur Fadden was chosen to lead his party after Robert Menzies resigned. National Archives of Australia

In the early 1930s, conservatives once again reorganised in the form of the United Australia Party, and dominated politics for the ensuing decade. But by 1941, after two years of wartime leadership, the young leader Robert Menzies appeared to falter. His colleagues disliked his brisk manner and the public lacked confidence in his government’s war efforts. A hung parliament after the 1940 election, in which two Independents held the balance, confirmed this. With his position untenable, Menzies resigned in August 1941 and the coalition unanimously chose Fadden, the Country Party leader, to replace him.

“Affable Artie” was a widely respected figure and apparently the only one who could hold together a decade-old government too consumed by infighting to meet the demands of the moment. His premiership lasted just 40 days, at which point the Independents offered John Curtin and Labor their support. The sole Country Party leader to become prime minister on a non-caretaker basis, Fadden was one of a small handful of men to lead the nation in a global war.



Australia and Its Forgettables​

Why is it that these five prime ministers are largely absent from national memory? Four factors seem particularly significant.

First, contemporary Australian political discourse offers only a shallow sense of history. Political reporting rarely reaches for historical depth, and when it does, the second world war tends to be the outer limit.

Moreover, when Australians are asked to rank their prime ministers and select a “best PM”, they rarely reach beyond living memory.

The federation generation, overshadowed by the first world war, fare especially poorly. In the 1990s, with the centenary of federation fast approaching, surveys revealed that Australians knew less about its federal founders than they did about America’s 'founding fathers’. What kind of country, the civics experts implored, could forget the name of its first prime minister? Tosspot Toby was no match for Simpson and his donkey.

Second, Australians prefer to think of their political history in terms of heroes and villains (often embodied by the same individuals). Those binary roles require gregariousness, dynamism, some controversy, and the occasional serving of larrikinism. “Tall poppy syndrome” notwithstanding, partisan heroes like Menzies and Gough Whitlam, or infamous rats such as Billy Hughes, make for easy storytelling.

The forgettables are more often reserved, restrained or even polite characters. The Primitive Methodist Joseph Cook was “olemn and humourless”. The patrician Bruce was judged “too aloof and reserved to be an Australian”. And Frank Forde, in his old age, maintained that all of his colleagues and opponents had been “outstanding” and “capable men” for whom he had only “friendly feeling”. This is not exactly the stuff of masculine political legend.

Alfred Deakin has tended to absorb the historical limelight and cast long shadows over his contemporaries, not least because he furnished historians and biographers with rich personal papers. (Barton scrupulously destroyed most of his). But as Sean Scalmer has argued, we ought not to overlook the influence of Deakin’s contemporaries in the making of Australian politics as we know it.


View attachment 11218

Alfred Deakin (front row, second from right) has tended to cast a long shadow over his contemporaries.
Australian Parliamentary Library

Third, prime ministers are rendered immemorable if they were judged to be temporary, or presiding over some kind of interregnum. Australians have valorised the longevity and stability of Menzies and Howard, or the sense of epochal change that accompanied Whitlam and Hawke. Men like Reid, Cook and Fadden seem transitory in comparison.

Fourth, public memory has often depended on the sponsorship of major parties and their affiliated scribes and institutes. The corollary is that those who preceded the two-party system are harder to commemorate. Labor has been excellent at proselytising its great leaders and their great reforms, and demonising the rats and renegades. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, has struggled to memorialise its antecedents and influences (Deakin perhaps excepted). Menzies and Howard predominate in the collective Liberal psyche, and Liberal forerunners from Barton to Bruce rarely get a look-in.

This article was first published on The Conversation, and was written by Joshua Black, PhD Candidate, School of History, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University
They left out Malcolm Fraser. Did nothing except let the Lebanese in. That went well didn't it? I forgot, also "misplaced" his trousers
 

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else
  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×