Churchill once said that once a committee had more than eight members it was a dead loss. Prime Minister-designate John Howard, who has said that Churchill was a hero of his, has opted for a Cabinet of 15 and a ministry of an addition 13. It has the advantage of being smaller than Labor’s Cabinet and Ministry, but is perhaps not small enough.
There have been some surprises in both the ministerial and public service appointments announced yesterday. Both teams need to be given a fair chance before judgment is cast. The fact that a person in Opposition has received a great deal of media limelight and public eye does not necessarily mean they will make excellent ministers, or that they would be best suited in the portfolio they carried in Opposition. Moreover, new people have come in to the Parliament which should change the make-up of the ministry.
Mr Howard has made it clear that he expects more of his ministers. He does not want them running to cabinet every time something difficult turns up. He wants them to make decisions themselves and if they make too many mistakes, he has warned he has many others to drawn from. He may regret taking that philosophy too far. The electorate rightly visits the sins of the individual minister upon the whole government.
Mr Howard has made some fairly good moves, and some he may regret. In foreign affairs, it was a mistake to keep Alexander Downer. His undergraduate approach to life and inability to do his homework is unsuited to the portfolio. Moreover, he will get chewed up by Gareth Evans in the House. Robert Hill would have been a better choice.
But given Mr Howard’s determination to keep Mr Downer in Foreign Affairs, the choice of Senator Hill in environment was inspired.
Senator Hill as a moderate will be better equipped to deal with the environment pressure groups. Of equal importance, as a senator of some experience will be better equipped to deal with the Democrats in the Senate who have said they will block the sale of a third of Telstra upon which much of the new Government’s finance for the environment relies.
It was sensible to amalgamate the justice and attorney-general’s portfolio and probably sensible to take it from Senator Amanda Vanstone and put it in the hands of the more quietly mature Daryl Williams. There are elements of the Attorney-General’s portfolio which require political independence and long-range judgement that are unsuited to a politically opportunist like Senator Vanstone. Mr Howard clearly wanted to avoided the pitfalls that Labor had in 1983 with the brash Gareth Evans. The pity is that he did not put the senior legal portfolio in Cabinet. He may regret this.
The two poison-chalice portfolios of Immigration and Aboriginal Affairs (none has gone on to better things) have been deftly dealt with. Philip Ruddock has had a lot of committee experience in immigration and knows the pitfalls. Senator John Herron is not well known, but as a medical doctor and military officer may be able to overcome the profound health and logistic problems in delivering assistance to Aborigines on the ground, as distinct from throwing money to black and white bureaucrats in the air.
It may have been better for Mr Howard to have amalgamated Treasury and Finance and some of the social security portfolios. Even so the test will be how individuals perform and the best structure in the world will not be an antidote to accident-prone ministers.