The selective tall-poppy syndrome is alive and well in Australia. At the very time we are delighting at athletes pursuing gold medals and appreciating it even more when Australian athletes achieve them, there is a mealy-mouthed view of the world that the Prime Minister should not be at the Olympics cheering the nation’s athletes on and playing host to the athletes of other nations and their families and supporters. That view is nonsense.
Sure, it may irk some people to see Mr Howard’s face appear on the television shortly after every medal and Australian features in is decided. But that is the fault of the television coverage. As head of government in Australia it is perfectly proper for Mr Howard to attend the Olympics most if not all days it is on. It is the most significant international event Australia is likely to hold for some years. It is an enormous opportunity for Australia to show itself to the world. It is an important part of the Prime Minister’s job to take part in that presentation. Many business, political, sporting, artistic and other leaders from around the world have come to the Games. They will take the opportunity to not only see the Games but to make contact with others. It would be quite remiss of the Prime Minister to absent himself from this interchange.
Those who imagine that there is more important work for the Prime Minister to do have it quite wrong. For a start, it is likely that Mr Howard is working late into the night, in the early morning and at weekends to keep up with the relentless amount of government work that does not stop just because the Games are on. Sure, the Prime Minister is obviously enjoying himself at times. However, it would be a mistake to imagine his attendance at the Games is free from work or free from pressure in the same way that a relaxed person on leave from work would be at the Games. He has to remain attentive as he meets Australia’s guests. He cannot just do what he likes.
Some of the criticism takes other forms. There is a suggestion that Mr and Mrs Howard are somehow getting a “”freebie”. The tickets come as part of the task of being host. Moreover, if anyone is getting the taxpayer-funded “”freebie” it is the much adored athletes.
Another criticism is that he is somehow usurping the role of head of state. True, the head of government is elected by just half the electorate, if that. But at present the Governor-General is a prime ministerial appointee and the Queen’s position is ambivalent. And even if we had a head of state elected (directly or indirectly), it would still be appropriate for the Prime Minister to spend a lot of time at a meeting like the Olympics. The head of state plays a different function from head of government. The latter can make valuable contacts and gain important perspectives by mixing with Australia’s guests and by mixing with Australians at the Games.
Who knows Mr Howard’s view of the world might be changed by the experience and that might bring to bear on his government’s policies.
Fortunately, the criticism of Mr Howard has mainly come in talkback and in the Letters to the Editor columns. It has not come (at least directly) from the Opposition, though Mr Beazley’s patent absence from nearly all the competition acts as a subtle condemnation.
On this occasion, there is nothing wrong with the Prime Minister preferring Sydney to Canberra. Australians take sport very serious – perhaps too seriously – and certainly as seriously as other elements of national life. People expect the Prime Minister’s presence at other sorts of major meetings. It should be no different for sport.