In the annals of political philosophy, a “reactionary” is generally defined as someone “opposing political or social progress or reform.”
The Abbott government certainly fits that description. On almost any measure, this government has lined up in opposition to most of the great contemporary movements of progress and reform, from marriage equality and gender liberation to human rights and the prudent custodianship of the environment.
So strident has this government’s reactionism become, it has advanced well beyond the usual fronts of the culture wars, to attack basic concepts of the Enlightenment, as scientific evidence and the rule of law.
The perfect example was Tony Abbott’s quixotic decision to reintroduce Australian knighthoods, and then to bestow one on Prince Philip, the superannuated consort of a faraway Queen.
Only a leader with a truly reactionary belief in the value of Australia’s vestigial monarchy could have countenanced such a decision, apparently in the genuine belief that it was a good idea. Australians might have had little quibble with knighting former general, Peter Cosgrove. But by bestowing a gong on a Prince Consort, Abbott invited open ridicule – and received it.
There is another sense in which the Abbott government is reactive: its overriding tendency to “act in response to a situation, rather than creating or controlling it.”
All governments must react to events, of course. But some governments manage to negotiate the inevitable potholes of office with a modicum of grace. This government has been hopeless at crisis management. It has repeatedly failed to foresee obvious perils, and struggled to deal with soluble dilemmas.
Never have those reactive tendencies been more visible than in recent weeks, as the Coalition has lurched from pratfall to crisis with scarcely a good day in between.
The debacle of Bronwyn Bishop’s travel scandal is the perfect case in point. Bishop was a terrible speaker. Her spiky demeanor and patrician hauteur won her few friends, even on her own side of politics. As soon as her venial approach to official travel became widely known, she became a laughing stock. Many in the cabinet were only too happy to be rid of her. But Abbott waited weeks before pushing her out, acting only when the damage had already been severe.
The reactive nature of this government is not just an affliction of the Prime Minister’s Office. Most of his senior ministers are struggling to articulate what they stand for, and what this government is about.
The malaise is so grave that even Abbott loyalists are starting to take note. Prominent right-wing warrior Janet Albrechtson penned a slashing column yesterday, calling on Abbott to clean out the dead wood.
“Cabinet is full of cobwebs,” Albrechtson declared. “It has a fusty old smell. Julie Bishop and Sussan Ley aside, it looks like a gathering of old (or older) white men. The cabinet has deeper problems, too… Not enough ministers are doing what is needed to win re-election: attract voters beyond the base of loyalists.”
When your own friends are writing articles like this, it’s a sure sign that the ship of state is starting to take on water. And, given how many leaks the Abbott cabinet appears to have sprung, perhaps that’s not surprising.
But the deeper issue here is Tony Abbott’s aimlessness. That lack of direction leaves his government with little to do but to jump at the latest provocation. Policy on the run has been a hallmark of this Coalition administration.
Two pieces of legislation introduced to the House of Representatives today are perfect examples. One will rewrite environmental law on the fly, despite plenty of advice that there’s nothing wrong with the existing framework. The other will strip away citizenship rights from terrorism suspects, despite plenty of advice that such a law will be unconstitutional.
In both cases, the Abbott government is reacting to events, rather than putting forward a coherent policy agenda.
Take Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s citizenship bill. The new law will strip away the Australian citizenship of those suspected of terrorism. The government portrays it as a counter-terrorism measure. None other than Bret Walker SC, the former national security monitor, thinks it will be useless in that regard.
But, like so much of the Abbott government’s national security agenda, it’s really a reaction to the government’s poor standing in opinion polls. Terrorism and national security are almost the only issues the Coalition feels comfortable talking about currently. And so Dutton is pushing ahead with the bill.
The only problem is: it’s almost certainly unconstitutional. As New Matilda’s Max Chalmers pointed out yesterday, the drafting of the legislation is slip-shod. In one astonishing error noticed by respected legal academic Anne Twomey, the bill’s explanatory memorandum refers to the wrong part of the draft legislation. There are even typos.
“It is obvious from the inconsistencies and the inadequacies of the Explanatory Memorandum and the Bill that they were prepared in great haste without proper time for careful deliberation and drafting,” Twomey wrote. Well, yes.
In the case of the mooted amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conversation Act, Environment Minister Greg Hunt’s argument rests on the assertion that green groups are somehow using this Howard-era legislation to sabotage mining developments.
Hunt is, of course, referring to the infamous Carmichael mine proposed for central Queensland, which has been held up in the Federal Court by litigation under the EPBC Act. Hunt claims, laughably, that this represents the “Americanisation” of environmental law in Australia.
That claim is frankly nonsensical, as none other than the Federal Court itself today pointed out. In a rare statement on such a sensitive political issue, the Federal Court observed that Adani’s Carmichael approval had been set aside with the consent of all the parties. If the Adani pause is a case of vigilantic "lawfare", then Greg Hunt’s Environment Department is one of the vigilantes.
But that hasn’t stopped Hunt from trying to amend section 487 of the EPBC Act. As usual with the worst environment minister in living memory, the effect will be to strip away environmental protections.
As you’d expect with an amendment apparently cooked up over instant coffee in a Canberra staff room, the amendment is poorly drafted. It could even be counter-productive. Critics point out that stripping away section 487 could actually lead to more litigation, as test cases are lodged to establish who and who doesn’t have the right to file suits against developments under the amended legislation.
That’s assuming the amendment ever gets passed. With Labor, the Greens and several cross-bench senators already opposed, the EBPC amendment seems unlikely to make it through the upper house.
That’s what happens when you don’t have an agenda. You make policy and legislation on the run.
And that’s another sense of the word ‘reaction’: a chemical reaction, such as an explosion.
To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.
MJoanneS
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 16:37
Abbott and the clowns were foisted on the public by most of the lazy media.
This user is a New Matilda supporter. MattQ
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 16:38
Thanks Ben. Instant coffee? No wonder they can't think(or lie) straight. When the agenda is to screw the electorate while denying the screwing, the resulting shambles are no surprise. Someone tell the Lib front bench that Australia is not America, and we don't want to be...
zeroxcliche
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 16:43
I'm not only concerned about policy on the run but the ability of foreign governments to affect policy. The US has major influence here, it owns and controls our banks - principle shareholders like JP Morgan and Citigroup own strategic stakes in the big 4 - its like a foreign cartel controlling the local cartel, Rio Tinto and Alcoa also get sweet deals. We have a history and strategic alliance with the US so it kind of pans out although I would argue the benefits of more independence. But as we engage more deeply with China and Asia, I don't want to come off like I'm concerned about Northern Hordes but China does have approximately the same amount of millionaires as we have people. Unless we develope institutional depth and a culture of evidence based policy we are going to get 'owned' and people like the ones in this present government and Shorten & Co will sell this country's sovereignty
dejesusdavid192
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 16:59
Big issue, big dibates, many things need to be disscussed but only few things will be implimented. And its a part of democracy.
jackets worn by celebrities in movies and tv series
johnnydadda
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 17:00
Abbott only has direction when he is backed into a corner, Bello ergo sum.
downboy
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 17:05
The Federal Court makes it all extremely clear. Government has egg all over its already egg splattered face.
Has there ever been a govermnment in our short hiistory that has collapsed so fast and done so much damage to the national interest and the national character?
This user is a New Matilda supporter. billgo
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 17:24
Abbott will go down in history as a man who made no attempt to grow from Leader of the Opposition to Prime Minister. We know a lot about what he is against and he uses an Opposition Leaders licence to distort the truth as one of his main weapons.
The sad fact of the whole of this government is that they don't "believe what they see" they only "see what they believe" - a certain recipe for eventual disaster.
This user is a New Matilda supporter. MattQ
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 18:12
zerox: Great points. We're going to get owned? Check it out in the rear-view mirror....
downboy: No, there really hasn't, has there?
billgo: Eloquently put. Bravo.
This user is a New Matilda supporter. RossC
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 19:01
The saddest thing about it is that it was just so totally predictable.
Abbott is an open book when it comes to inherent, errant behaviour. He's so clearly on the 'wrong side of history' on so many issues, and his tribal instincts demand a closed inner-circle of like-minded supplicants, thereby guaranteeing disaster.
Soon Abbott will be nothing more than an amusing footnote in history.
Its just a pity that we all have to suffer the costs of his inane chaos in the interim.
Noel Debien
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 22:01
I think you meant to say venal, not venial. Venal is worse.
EarnestLee
Posted Friday, August 21, 2015 - 02:06
We all know the faults. But who has got the fix?
We need an ABC Party ASAP.
xfretensis
Posted Friday, August 21, 2015 - 07:27
the art of digging yourself out when bogged up to the axles....
step 1/ put on the billy and fix yourself a cuppa...
step 2/ is actually step one... think, think, think about it... plan your action...
step 3/ avoid the bloody bog in the first place... it's pointless being bogged and then lying to yourself about it, especially when everyone passing can see it!!
DON_de-Plume
Posted Friday, August 21, 2015 - 08:29
RossC, I think Mr Rabbott is best considered as a political aberance, currently.
For him to be inherently errant implies that he possesses ideas ( thought bubble policy) which are proving wrong/problematic/in the service of vested interests etc.
He is a vacuum, sucking the life out of Australia - one stupidity after another.
He is the LNP's Living National Pillock of choice.
The office of leader will have its dignity restored, just not yet. And while he continues, with his cohort of concubines and collaborators, he will deliver that great outcome of " banished to the political wilderness" for rather longer than any of us can now dream.
so every time I look at the Speed like train wreck slo mo flashing across the screen of his existential crisis - I am cheered, muchly. :-)
worrierqueen
Posted Friday, August 21, 2015 - 09:58
When every pick is a Captain's pick we no longer live in a democracy.
Gate
Posted Friday, August 21, 2015 - 17:18
There's a big difference between "venial" and "venal". Bronwyn Bishop is venal to her core and her sins were very far from venial.
This user is a New Matilda supporter. boganbludging
Posted Saturday, August 22, 2015 - 11:51
Ben did you have to show us that photo of Abbott, with his idiotic grin, every time I see it, I want to punch.
Casablanca
Posted Saturday, August 22, 2015 - 18:19 new
Sorry to have to point out another typo: it's the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation (not conVerSation) Act.
Casablanca
Posted Saturday, August 22, 2015 - 18:32 new
Sorry to have to point out another typo: it's the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation (not conVerSation) Act.