The Prime Minister's preoccupation with knighthoods and his unilateral decision to award one to the Duke of Edinburgh not only feeds into the republican debate but is further revealing of his character and governmental style.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
At worst it shows hubris rather than mature collaboration with colleagues; ideology rather than pragmatism; unreconstructed old-fashioned values rather than being open to modern Australia. At best it shows a terrible sense of timing, a lack of strategic awareness and a total blind-spot when it comes to the British monarchy.
These characteristics will continue to offend many monarchists as well as republicans and many Coalition supporters as well as his political opponents. He made the Duke of Edinburgh rather than the Australian of the Year and other ordinary Australians the focus of Australia Day. They are further evidence of elements of the style that has dogged his prime ministership and they are also a reminder of some of the characteristics that were associated with his earlier public life.
There was considerable controversy last year when Abbott reintroduced knighthoods into the awards of the Order of Australia and much of the criticism came from within his own party ranks. It came not just from republicans but others who objected that they had not been consulted about such a controversial issue. And although Liberal republicans knew that the move emerged from a monarchist mind-set they saved the PM some embarrassment by brushing off its implications.
Abbott has not learned the lessons of that experience. He has shown again the defiance that has led him to also reject criticisms of his budget and has made any contrition about mistaken budget priorities so half-hearted. Instead he has not just repeated his mistake but amplified it.
A wiser leader would have let the knighthoods decision settle down, perhaps fade away, by making only very careful awards, such as the one to Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. He could even have restricted them to vice-regal appointees only. Instead he has leapt into a controversial appointment which makes a mockery of his defenders' claims that this is not about the monarchy-republic question.
He has now indelibly linked the knighthoods' reintroduction, always a sign of a colonial mind-set, to the broader republic debate. The Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten, could not have wished for a better salvo from the Prime Minister to assist in reigniting republican momentum, which he called for in his own Australia Day remarks.
Abbott has also reminded us of some of his earlier characteristics. He was known above all as a "young fogey", because of his attachment to traditional values and attitudes. That remains the case. He is a deeply old-fashioned conservative, more committed to the past than even his older mentor, John Howard.
His monarchical mind-set is also ideological rather than practical. Perhaps this should always have been expected from a former executive director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. However, I once thought that among monarchists Abbott probably was of a more practical bent, with some willingness to conciliate. For instance, he once suggested that the governor-general be declared the Australian head of state.
But, in office, rather than seeking middle-ground he is adversarial about the monarchy. Rather than allowing the republican question to settle he has pandered to hard core monarchists. In doing so he runs the risk of abandoning the middle ground by winding back modern developments and fiddling personally with the Australian honours system.
His defenders will say, as they did last year when he reintroduced knighthoods, that he is doing nothing new. Abbott's media release implies this. After all Malcolm Fraser did preside over the award to Prince Charles of a knighthood in the Order of Australia in 1981. Whatever this was for it could not have been for an "extraordinary life of service" as Charles was a very young man at the time. Then in 1988, at the time of the bicentenary, Bob Hawke, a Labor prime minister, presided over the appointment of Prince Philip as a Companion in the Military Division of the Order of Australia for "service to the Australian Defence Force as Admiral of the Fleet in the Royal Australian Navy, Field Marshal in the Australian Army and Marshal in the Royal Australian Air Force".
Certainly this shows that Philip has plenty of Australian awards to include among his mind-blowing number of titles, decorations and honorary appointments. But it does not show that this knighthood is a reasonable appointment. Instead it is a case of over-reach and of not reading the signs of the times. These earlier appointments were made about 30 years ago, before the republican movement got seriously underway in the early '90s. Just because something was done previously, does not mean it is right in 2015. There was a lot wrong, including Prince Charles' central involvement, with our celebration of the bicentenary. Nor is it clear that Fraser and Hawke were as directly involved in the two previous awards as Abbott clearly was in this one.
The better parallel is with the apparent willingness by Fraser to entertain Prince Charles as the next governor-general of Australia. It was and remains the Prime Minister's prerogative to recommend a name to the Queen. But Fraser quickly realised that he had misread the mood of the Australian people and pulled back from what would have been a bad mistake. Hawke was not interested and Howard later knocked on the head the idea of Prince William as governor-general.
Abbott, however, seems addicted to the idea of the Captain's Pick. There is no guarantee that he will ever learn otherwise about this and other aspects of his style.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University and former chair of the Australian Republican Movement
