It must be said that this book achieves that objective in its broadest way and one is left with very clear perspectives of all four governments and many of their strengths and weaknesses, even if one could wish for further examples to support the statement that “Hawke regards Parliament as an unfortunate necessity and bypasses it when it suits his purpose. Hawke believes that his audience is the electorate. He believes that Parliament ritualises disagreement whereas he is interested in consensus.” One does not necessarily disagree but in a book as detailed as this, one would like some points to support an argument.

One would also like to know the origin of the quotation that Fraser confused leadership with command, because it so neatly encapsulates the former Liberal leader. Perhaps this is answered by an earlier statement by the author that his analysis is less concerned with uncovering new facts than with trying to make sense of the ones we know.

In considering leadership he notes that “In Britain, Conservative leaders are regarded with a degree of deference that would be unknown in any Labour party. In Australia, Liberal leaders are given greater freedom to succeed, but treated with less patience when they fail, than their Labor counterparts.” One would assume that this is more an indication of the character of the electorate than the personalities of the leaders.

Some of the more important parts of the book discuss the relations between the prime minister and other ministers, particularly the situation in Australia where the PM has power to allocate ministries but is only one voice in the decision as to who is to become a minister. It would appear that Prime Ministers in Australia and New Zealand have less power in this matter than in the other two Westminster partners. But this is more apparent than real. The author would appear to support this view.

I found the discussion of the power of the constituent associations to decide policy and the power they might have to insist upon the Parliamentary party to accept and implement such policy a little less clear than the remainder of the book, but perhaps this is because the matter is still far from clear and the position seems to change, especially where Labor governments are concerned, after every conference, if not more frequently. The author prefers to state the situation and leaves the reader to draw his own conclusions. Not a bad attitude. He wisely illustrates the difference responsibility makes to a Prime Minister by the example of Attlee who, when leader of the Opposition, argued that conference “lays down the policy of the party and issues instructions” but when he was prime minister denied that conference had more than an advisory role. In general he seems to accept the idea that the parliamentary caucus has the power to decide what can be sold to the electorate. He seems to think that a programmatic prime minister such as Whitlam was more willing to accept conference decisions.

The author’s conclusions are too long even to be paraphrased in a review but must be essential reading for any student of the Westminster system, the role of prime ministers and the subject of how we are governed and by whom.