The slide of a Prime Minister: why the knighthood?

The downward trajectory of PM Tony Abbott was sharpened by the announcement on Australia Day that Prince Philip would be given a (recently-resurrected) Australian knighthood.

This had a spillover effect on the Queensland State election a week later, and was undoubtedly the deciding factor in putting the opposition over the line.

Abbott survived a party-room vote for a leadership spill, but has been left with the certainty of a harrowing descent from top dog to oblivion before the next election.  He had been consistently on the nose with the electorate ever since he was elected, demonstrating his opposition skills did not transfer to actual leadership.  He has clearly not grown with the job, as recent media attested.

The biggest puzzle here is: why did Abbott give Prince Phillip a knighthood?  The following is the only rational explanation I can find.

First, a brief history.  Australia’s own honours awards were established in 1975; prior awards to Australians were under the British system.  However, it wasn’t until the conservative Liberals were elected in 1976 that knighthoods were awarded.  These lasted only until 1983, when Labor abolished knighthoods again.  The next conservative PM (Howard) didn’t re-establish them, but Abbott, a long-time monarchist, did in 2014, after a gap of 30 years.

This was “advised” to the Queen, signed and gazetted from April 2014.  Honours are awarded in June (the “Queen’s Birthday” public holiday on the second Monday in June) and January (Australia Day, the 26^th).

Clearly, to give Prince Phillip a knighthood, it would have to be squared with the Palace in advance, say four months.  My thinking is that Abbott effectively gave him a knighthood at the first available opportunity.  But the question is, why?

I suspect that as a monarchist, Abbott had such a plan from way back.  He may have felt that the republican sentiment of recent times was a little close to the bone, and the best way to draw back from that was to bring the monarchy closer to Australia.  A royal tour, yes, and we’ve had two since Abbott was elected.  But if a Royal with sufficient gravitas was knighted, surely that would bring the two countries closer together?  Of course, this excludes the younger ones who inhabit the pages of the gossip magazines.  So who’s available?

Surprisingly enough, Charles was given an Australian knighthood, in 1981 – possibly in anticipation of his wedding.  So there’s a precedent.  Can’t do the monarch, so who’s left?

Now Phillip’s not that bad.  Harmless, shows he has a sense of humour.  And if he’s a bit of a duffer, surely the larrikin in the typical Australian will warm to this as we draw him closer to us.

So the plan was put in train as soon as possible after Abbott became PM in September 2013.

However, that didn’t allow for Abbott’s poor reception with the voting public – which only compounded when his actual policies floundered (and foundered) at the hands of a less-than-sympathetic Senate.

Sometimes, when faced with unpopularity, Abbott spoke glibly of his prerogative to make “Captain’s calls”.  Come January 2015, he didn’t want to lose face with the “Palace” by withdrawing the Sir Prince proposal, so he figured he’d just have to grit his teeth and take a tiny bit more flak for one more Call.

He must have known it was a stupid call, because he admitted to “consulting” only one other person beforehand: the Chair of the Order of Australia Council – Angus Houston – who, as it happened, was the only other Australian whose knighthood was announced for the same day.

In the cloistered world of his own opinion, Abbott may have thought Australians would put up with this Captain’s Call with few grumblings, especially since the electorate had apparently voted in favour of monarchy in 1999.  But the depth of the subsequent backlash must have surprised many.  Even within his own party, a significant groundswell of opposition was publicly voiced.

Australia has a strong tradition of not electing governments for a single term only.  However, the Victorian election in November gave the lie to this, and the Liberals were booted out.  Surely this couldn’t happen in Queensland, where the Liberals comprised 78 out of the 89-seat parliament, and Labor had been reduced to a rump of seven?  Although one might expect a backswing at the next election, but not normally such a reversal that the Liberals were defeated.

So my story is one of a Prime Minister who came from a presumption of prerogative, then later felt he couldn’t lose face with the Palace and back down from a risky move, even at a dangerous time.  It speaks to a particularly autocratic leadership style, one that is not inclined to the consultative.  This is reflected in both his Captain’s Calls, and his strong affinity to a chief of staff (Peta Credlin) who is by all accounts particularly capable, but just as authoritarian – even to Cabinet Ministers.

There is no Get Out Of Jail for Abbott by now.  His several electorates have stopped listening, and the slips he is still making are not being indulged.

Reflections on Australia's election - Part two: result and aftermath

There's finally an outcome to Australia's election of 17 days ago.


The story so far: Australia’s federal election of August 21 returned a hung parliament.  The numbers were: Labor 72; Liberal/National Coalition (conservative): 72; independent National: 1; Green: 1; independent ex-Green: 1; independent rural conservatives: 3.  Number needed to commit to form stable government: 76.

To further complicate, the balance of power in the Senate is due to be in the hands of the Greens – however, the Senate seats are only to change over next July, so the balance of power until then will remain in the hands of a minor-party conservative climate change skeptic.

For the past 17 days, the three rural conservatives – all defectors from the National party with some consequent bad blood – had been locked in negotiation with both sides.  The rest of the small players had by now announced their intentions, resulting in Labor 74, Coalition 73.

Finally today, the three committed: the first, Bob Katter, to the conservative side, as expected.  The other two finally pledged to Labor.

Those three independents had said they intended to vote as a block to ensure stable government.  Rob Oakeshott, the youngest, most articulate and least conservative, emerged as their de facto leader (or spokesperson).  Their strongest stated agenda was a) to aim for stable government; b) to get commitment to some reforms in parliamentary procedure; c) to get a better deal for regional Australia.  They clearly got what they wanted on the latter two; stable government will be quite difficult.  Despite everyone’s stated commitments, the independents seem to be all reserving the right – to varying degrees – to withdraw support on anything bar supply and confidence.

Katter’s move didn't suprise.  Despite some of his mutterings, I don’t think he could ever have supported anyone but the conservatives*.

Oakeshott was the final person in parliament to declare his intentions – and thus the fate of government in Australia.  One could say that at his press conference he drew out his announcement too long, simply for effect. (Nobody – including the parliamentary leaders – knew his intentions before he spoke his most significant word: Gillard - ie Labor.)  On the other hand, he indicated in that press conference that he was aware of the gravitas of his announcement, so he went into some detail about the reasoning behind it.  Not the least of this was: would he be able to sleep at night with his decision?

His announced reasons were, in order: Labor’s Broadband policy, climate change, and regional education.

Broadband: Labor’s policy was for a large-scale fibre rollout as a significant and meaningful investment in infrastructure.  The Coalition’s policy involved a significant reliance on incentives to private enterprise, and for wireless to cover any gaps.  Labor’s was seen to be better than the Coalition’s, except by the Coalition, those in the fibre industry – and Bob Katter, who said he didn’t think there was much between the two policies.

Winner: Australia’s infrastructure.  That is, unless you think like one National PM who claimed that fibre would turn out to be a white elephant (that may possibly be the case in the long run, but as John Maynard Keynes said, “in the long run, we are all dead”).

Climate change: the previous governments – both Liberal and Labor – baulked on this issue; Liberal because they were headed by (and populated by) climate change disbelievers, and the later Labor government because their grip on the Senate was so tenuous that they held no prospect of getting any meaningful action passed (large-scale industrial adjustment is always particularly difficult anyway, because the losing industries are there already to complain loudly, and the winning industries haven’t yet become well established - or cashed up).  In theory at least, this means the prospect of real action of climate change, because a) the government is supported on that basis, and b) the Senate will be in the hands of the Greens – albeit next July.

Winner: Well, everyone, ultimately.  Probably.

Integrity:  Rob Oakeshott stated intentions consistently related to general principles over specific electoral pork barrelling.  Liberal leader – for the moment – Tony Abbott came off rather less well.  In response to a request from the ex-Green independent, he promised a billion-dollar hospital in his electorate.  This was rejected as unfunded and unrealistic.  Then, according to “inside sources”, Abbott last night promised the remaining independents “everything they wanted”.  As one of them subsequently said, though, with 68 years’ experience in public life between the three of them they’d seen every trick in the book.  Which is to say, they couldn't trust anyone who baldly said they’d give them everything they wanted.  In summary, principles were seen to be more important than specific promises, and Abbott lost out.

Winner: Oakeshott.  Probably.

Stable government:  Unless Labor gets written commitment from the Greens, the ex-Green, and the two rural independents, there’s no telling where they’ll get blockage.  And as a National pointed out today, any one of several people could renege, become incapacitated, or die.  Further, Steve Fielding, the Senate’s Quixotic conservative balance of power (for the moment), is so mercurial there’s no telling what he’ll do while he still possesses a modicum of power.  One comment he gave indicated he may well act as complete spoiler to Labor all the way next July.

Winner: not stable government, not proactive government.  Probably.

Ideology: isn’t it all about conservative vs liberal, right vs left?  As the third independent, Tony Windsor, pointed out today he didn’t have much problem supporting the other side, because “philosophy with these parties died a decade ago or longer”.  That is rather a good explanation of the result of the general election.  Yet having said that, it’s worth noting that in the end, all independents fell to their traditional leanings, bar Tony Windsor (although Oakeshott is an ex-National in name, he has consistently espoused progressive views).  I further note a comment I heard a week or so back, that all major English-heritage countries now have hung parliaments – that is, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, USA, and Canada.  This does rather speak to a significant dilution of political principle, on a global scale.

Winner: not principle.

Prime Minister: Did Julia Gillard sound like she was speaking with gritted teeth after the prize was hers?  Did Tony Abbott display any sense of relief amongst his mixed emotion?  Because this is going to be the hardest prime ministership in decades.  Winner: Julia Gillard.  Maybe.

*Katter once notably proclaimed that he’d walk backwards to Canberra if there were any gays in his electorate.  Of course, he never fulfilled that promise.  In mitigation, as a gay man in his electorate pointed out today, you’d be most unwise to come out of the closet anywhere in that diffuse rural electorate.

John Howard's Graham Morris: the small man behind the small man

I chanced upon some television last Friday that pitted Graham Morris against Tim Gartrell in a discussion of the recent wave of boat people headed for Australian shores.

A debate on "illegal immigration" is hardly going to be edifying, much less one that involves ex-heavyweights from each side of politics.  And it's particularly daunting when the participants are the above two.  (For the ALP, ex-National Director Gartrell put in an especially disgraceful turn in rolling up wetness, rightwing thuggery, and knee-jerk populism into an unpalatable ball.  But that's another story.)

Graham Morris was once John Howard's chief of staff when Howard was Prime Minister.  He leaves little impact on the world, judging by his web presence, but he has been a Howard adviser, Howard defender, and now PR flak.  His latest appearance of note was on the ABC documentary The Howard Years.

And what a small man he was in the above debate.  He displayed a manner and pettiness of spirit that was directly reminiscent of... John Howard.  He could have been the doppelganger that took over from Howard when the latter got booted out - if Morris hadn't already been given the boot some years back - an apparent head rolled in the travel rorts affair of 1997.

But it's so damned uncanny!  Such a close approximation of John Howard in a man who ostensibly shared such a brief stint on stage with him.  The ingratiating yet supercilious mannerisms.  The arrogant yet populist meanness.  And the nasty streak behind him.  For someone who has been apparently out of the corridors of power for so long, he wielded attitude like a big stick.  Towards the end of his time, he appeared to directly threaten the preselection or senate position of anybody in the Liberal Party that held a view differing from the one he'd expressed.

In all, Graham Morris purveyed just the sort of dogmatic determinism you'd expect from the small man behind a small man.


Links: of the few traces I find of Graham Morris, you can pursue the following if you feel so moved:
- His entry on Zoominfo, a personal profile aggregator;
- ABC's The Howard Years is available here, although you'd have to trawl for Morris' appearances.

First defeat of bad climate change legislation

Today the Australian Senate is expected to knock back the government's key climate change bill, which sets up an emission trading scheme.

The scene would then be set for a re-introduction of the bill in November, potentially to be followed by a double dissolution snap election.

The opposition, scheduled to knock it back ostensibly via a raft of amendments, is opposing the bill for the sake of opposing. The government doesn't have the numbers in the Senate unless the Greens are on side.

Which they're not, because the bill is a thorough travesty. Despite Al Gore's backing (on the basis that taking something to the end of year climate change conference is better than nothing), this bill is seriously regressive.

Under the bill, large polluters are obliged to cut back carbon emissions, but any action by individuals means the large corporations don't have to do as much. In effect, individual action only benefits the corporations (see Ross Gittens here). In fact, this encourage people to engage in greater carbon polluting activities, simply to force the corporations to become more energy efficient. After more than a decade of paying higher electricity prices for green energy, as soon as the bill is passed I should move to brown electricity (as Gittens points out).

Kevin Rudd should be thoroughly embarassed to present such a perverse message to Australians.

Turnbull performs as expected

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating offered current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd some advice about the then-new opposition leader: He's brilliant, he's fearless... and he's got bad judgment.

(Reported by Peter Hartcher in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald.)


Keatings words could easily be Turnbull's epitaph. If you're going for the PM's jugular, it pays to have more evidence than a single email - as Turnbull found out, it could be forged.

The fact that Turnbull pushed it so hard - and with such personal arrogance in one or two conversations - is fully reflected in the three opinion polls released today, which show a plummet in support for Turnbull and the Liberals. Of course, he'll survive this... and could well lead the Liberals to defeat at the next election - for precisely the reasons I expected when Turnbull was on his way up.

Counting your enemies in Australian politics

Arch conservative nitpicker Gerard Henderson is now one of the longest running columnists in the Sydney Morning Herald. He's happiest when the Liberals are in power, of course, but he's never beyond giving a spray to either side of politics, the ALP for the all the perceived failings of the left, and the Liberals for, well, just not being conservative enough.

Recently, he was rather miffed that the Greens won a state parliamentary seat in the Fremantle by-election in Western Australia. He was comforted by his own analysis that the Greens would never win a seat outside the inner city electorates. But what really got his goat was the Liberals' part in the affair: they didn't run a candidate.

Fremantle was, admittedly, a safe Labor seat. And there is a strong tradition of major parties not turning up in by-elections where a) they cannot hope to win, b) the overall poll numbers are not finely balanced, and c) there is no topical scandal.

So by Henderson's numbers, Labor got their usually tally, while "nearly all" traditional Liberal voters [must have] voted Green. He shafts responsibility home to the Liberals' practice of preferencing the Greens over Labor in close-to-the-wire electorates.

Of course, this assumes that Liberal voters either a) do what they're told, or b) see Labor as their worst enemy, and in either case, c) are pretty stupid if they're meant to be conservative or right-wing, but end up voting for a good solid left-winger.

Henderson characterises the Greens as "Australia's only left-wing party" - which, despite some on the left agreeing with that, is more a measure of his sniping at Labor (something he does at every opportunity). Of course, there are plenty of left-wing parties, but none (to my knowledge) have parliamentary representation in Australia, bar the Greens and the Australian Labor Party.

But it really depends on the conversation you are having as to whether you call the ALP left or right. Certainly anyone with clear left-wing sympathies would consider them right, but come election time, if it's a choice between two evils, left preferences mostly end up with Labor. Of course, there are those left fundamentalists who would rather attempt to foment revolution by ensuring those Labor quislings are out in the cold and waiting until the Liberals are sufficiently on the nose.

Unfortunately for them, the Australian electorate as a whole is rather conservative, and so will never - as a whole - go any further left that the ALP. Cold comfort for Henderson, whose nose is put even more out of joint by the actions of the Liberals at the margins.

The margin in this case is how-to-vote cards, which can have some influence on outcomes. From a purely party-political perspective the Liberals, of course, see their fundamental enemies as the ALP. So they will do anything to reduce their parliamentary presence, even so far as to encourage their own voters to go over the heads of Labor, even further left to the Greens.

So it depends who you consider your enemy - and this is where the equations go perverse. Labor is the enemy of the parliamentary Liberals, a fair few people on the left, and Henderson when it suits him. The Greens are the enemy of the far right, and the ALP when the Greens are too close at their heels. The Liberals are the enemy of the left and parliamentary Labor.

And Henderson, at times, seems to profess to being surrounded by enemies.

Chris Pyne is a Liberal, after all.

Whenever an MP of the Liberal Party of Australia refers to the party as a "broad church", you know there's disunity in the parliamentary ranks.

Although it is one of the few right-wing Liberal parties in the world, its founding basis (in the 1940s) means it sometimes attracts what is known in Australia as "small-L liberals", ie those that are not really right wing.

Former Prime Minister John Howard recently referred to the party as "centre right" - which is ironic, given he led it on a lurch to the right over his 11-year tenure.

As it happens, Malcolm Turnbull, who is currently warming the leadership seat, is a small-l liberal. In a few bouts of turmoil over the past week, he elevated a couple of colleagues who were of the same ilk, Joe Hockey - now shadow Treasurer - and Chris Pyne. The latter in particular rankled the hard right and conservatives, including Pyne's fellow South Australian and factional opponent Cory Bernardi. Bernardi published a newsletter in which he mentioned that an unnamed Liberal MP once mentioned to him that he could easily have joined the Labor Party instead, but he joined the Liberals because he lived within a Liberal seat.

The nameless one was quickly identified as Pyne, and Bernardi was seen (by Turnbull at least) as fanning the flames of disunity, and was asked to apologise. Of course, what he said was true, and he hadn't named the MP, so Bernardi stood his ground, and for his sins was forced to resign from the front bench.

The point of it all is that, yes the Liberal Party is a broad church. And Labor, too, has left and right - it's easy to call it more right than left. However, in the dichotomous spectrum of Australian politics, Liberal is clearly the party of the conservative/right, and Labor is clearly more the party of the left. If you join the Liberals, you should expect to be working with, and to, a right-wing agenda.

My political sympathies see a stark delineation between left and right. And from that perspective, someone who is out of step with that is simply a quisling. Having said that, it's easy to see that in the wake of the Liberals' electoral defeat, there would inevitably be forces trying to bring the party back from the hard right, and I can't complain about that.