Australia’s most admired PMs
Bob Hawke has been named Australia’s most admired former prime minister, with new DemosAU research finding the former Labor leader holds the strongest net positive rating of any former PM tested.
The national poll found Hawke recorded a net positive rating of +31, ahead of former Liberal prime minister John Howard on +24 and Australia’s longest-serving prime minister Robert Menzies on +17.
Former Labor prime ministers Ben Chifley and John Curtin rounded out the top five, both recording net positive ratings of +11.
Respondents were asked whether they held a positive, neutral or negative view of 16 former Australian prime ministers. Hawke was viewed positively by 46 per cent of Australians and negatively by 15 per cent. Howard recorded the highest positive rating at 47 per cent, but also attracted a higher negative rating of 23 per cent.
DemosAU Head of Research George Hasanakos said Hawke continued to hold a distinctive place in Australians’ perceptions of their former political leaders.
“Bob Hawke has been out of office for more than three decades, but he continues to be viewed positively across a remarkably broad section of the Australian public,” Mr Hasanakos said.
Generational differences
The results revealed a significant generational divide. Among Australians aged 55 and over, Hawke led with a net positive rating of +42, followed by Menzies (+35) and Howard (+32).
Among 18–34-year-olds, however, Howard ranked first at +15, with Kevin Rudd and Hawke tied on +13.
“The fact Hawke still ranks among the most positively viewed former prime ministers for younger Australians is particularly notable given many were born well after he left office,” Mr Hasanakos said.
More recent former prime ministers tended to record lower net ratings nationally, including Julia Gillard (-2), Kevin Rudd (-5), Tony Abbott (-6), Malcolm Turnbull (-9) and Scott Morrison (-16).
About the research
DemosAU surveyed 1,562 Australian residents aged 18 and over who were eligible to vote between 18 and 20 August 2026. The research has an effective margin of error of +/- 3.6%.
Read the full report here.
