The invitation to rank Canberra's 10 most powerful couples for last Sunday's Canberra Times was not just an opportunity to reflect on the couples themselves but on the notion of power itself.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Those concerned came from very different walks of life and presumably exercise power in many different ways.
So the couples represent varieties of power: direct and indirect; political, economic and cultural; the power to act and the power to advise; the power to adjudicate and the power to communicate; private and public sector power; the power to impact and the power to prevent impact.
There are other types of power too (not well represented), such as financial, social and religious. The couples do not make up Canberra's rich list, nor Canberra's social "A" list, for instance.
Couples are just one slice of power; many extremely powerful people would not qualify because they are single or because their partner is not regarded as a powerful person in their own right.
Often it is because this person is not in the paid workforce, unlike all 20 of the individuals featured. This in itself raises the interesting question of the possible "silent" power of the partner of a very powerful person.
Matthew Raggatt's article mentioned the possible power of political wives such as Dame Pattie Menzies or Janette Howard.
The different aspects of power make any comparisons difficult.
Ranking of the wealth of Australians, as in the BRW rich list, due out later this week, is much more straightforward (though the precise numbers can still be speculative).
That is why another annual listing by a Fairfax newspaper, the Australian Financial Review, breaks down power into three main aspects: political, economic and cultural.
Power also changes over time. Some of these ways are obvious: changes of government lead to the power of party-aligned individuals waxing and waning.
Like wealth, power can be won and lost, but in general power is accumulated during a career.
Even prodigies take time to reach positions of power in the public service, law and government. That is why, with the one private-sector exception, this is a list of middle-aged people (a list of power couples under 40 would be interesting).
Many of them are at the height of their power, which is not to say they may not remain powerful for quite some time.
This is a very Canberra list for the obvious reason that we are the national capital.
So it is where the federal government, Parliament, senior public service and much of the national media is located. It is also where most of the national NGOs and many of the political lobbyists gather to exercise influence and to foster relationships with government.
Take these sectors away and much of the list is accounted for. In other cities the private sector would almost certainly have greater representation.
To take just one example of the emphasis on political power, three of those on this list have been, or are, chief of staff or senior private secretary to a prime minister or leader of the opposition.
In other ways the list is a mainstream one, both in terms of personal biographies and occupations.
Ten married, heterosexual couples represent the traditional Australian norm. They hold positions within the established systems and institutions of power: serving government or the major political parties; working for mainstream communication channels; representing established sectors such as business, universities, law and medicine, for instance.
This should be no surprise because that is what to be in power means.
However, the very fact this is a list of couples (six with separate surnames) represents modern Australia. And in many of the couples it is the woman who is probably the more powerful, or at least the more senior.
Nevertheless, some on the list are reformers who challenge mainstream attitudes, hold unpopular views and advocate for unfashionable causes. However, there is no one working at the moment for one of Australia's newer social movements.
As a group the 20 represent diversity and social mobility. They've apparently had comfortable enough backgrounds in most instances, including one whose father was a senior public servant. But they are not from dynasties.
A number are immigrants or from immigrant families. Several come from regional areas such as Geelong, Burnie or Launceston. A few have ANU degrees, but many have come to Canberra after secondary and tertiary education elsewhere in Australia.
That education was more often not at establishment schools or universities but at schools such as Reservoir High School or St Pius X in Chatswood, or newer universities such as La Trobe.
The extended stories of these couples reveal their humanity. Many have had personal disappointments along with career success. They are all clearly busy people who have to address the same work-life balance that most Australians cherish.
Some readers may consider such a listing trivial, though I disagree. Some of those listed may consider such publicity intrusive. Indeed, some professions such as the public service and the law have traditionally considered personal anonymity a prerequisite for doing the job in an appropriate fashion.
Celebrity is to be avoided. But in my view, there is little value in having the holders of powerful positions shrouded in mystery. To do so only reinforces a dangerous gap between them and the community at large.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University
