Australia’s deposed prime ministers deserve more respect

Trust in the office of prime minister appears to have returned after being shaken to its core.

Having been left out of the ­decision-making process as the country lurched from Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard to Rudd and then from Tony Abbott to Malcolm Turnbull, Australians are enjoying the more predictable old ways under the leadership of Turnbull.

Not only are most Australians happy, so are those watching from afar. After all, the world had become used to Australia providing an example of stable parliamentary democracy for most of the time since Federation.

Whether regarded as too unpredictable, too shrill, too aggressive or just too unsuitable, the perceived faults of the three previous prime ministers are in stark contrast to Turnbull’s “calm and caution”, as Niki Savva ­described his approach in The ­Australian last week. However, it is wrong to look back on those deposed simply in a negative light; each attained the highest office through ability and skill. They deserve more respect.

This may seem a tall order, more so now than ever with the advent of social media.

Puerile gibes, retweeted or ­posted by online trolls with the alacrity of an addict seeking another hit, seek to reduce the ­reputation of people who have achieved something fewer than 50 Australians have done: become PM.

Of course, some wounds on Abbott, Rudd and Gillard may be self-inflicted. The wisdom of each at times after their res­pective party­room coups was questionable. I think it was wrong that Gillard and Rudd chose to ­participate in ABC’s The Killing Season, giving the Coalition ready-made attack ads, just as I criticise Abbott’s recent remarks that seek to compromise the Turnbull government on national security (when everything is unchanged).

While former leaders are ­within their rights to voice opinions, it is more a case of where and how they do it.

Thankfully, time has seen Gillard and Rudd move on. Both have the world’s disadvantaged in mind, as Rudd heads a UN-related body to deliver better hygiene and Gillard seeks to improve access to education globally. They also have found other purposeful roles in Australia and overseas.

For Abbott, it is more difficult as he remains in parliament. While he is a good man who has had a professional life serving the public, he now appears at sea. Like many politicians previously dumped so unceremoniously (there is no other way in reality) Abbott seems angry and at times vengeful. While time will be a healer, Abbott’s challenge to find a suitable place in contemporary debate is stark. It would be wrong and inappropriate if his mood were allowed to become a stain on his character.

A question occupying political minds is: “What are we going to do with Tony?” One reason we do not know the answer is because Australia does not have a system in place, or a place at all, that helps deal with the question of what a former prime minister does next.

In Britain, former leaders can go to the House of Lords, where contributions are unlikely to cause ripples of leadership speculation or unnerve the prime minister of the day.

In the US they are more progressive as Americans respect the position of president. They refer to those past as Mr President (there has not yet been a Ms), libraries and places of study are built in their honour, often thanks to philanthropists, and big corporations welcome them as consultants or advocates.

In Australia we cannot put our former prime ministers into our upper house.

Our business community has a closed mind on their potential contribution; a cynic would conclude prime ministers are useful to companies while they are in the job but of no use when they’re ­finished.

Given Australians’ apparent disdain for former leaders, we ­simply do not sanction a place of ­legacy for them.

We have a responsibility to support a change in approach. Our collective hands are not clean in the downfall of recent leaders.

Australia should embrace a new deal for old PMs beyond ­giving them an office and a couple of staff. You don’t have to agree with their views but respect their knowledge and contribution to our nation.

Imagine the Gillard Centre for Education, the Rudd Institute for Foreign Policy and the Abbott Foundation for Indigenous ­Advancement. Affiliated with our best universities or think tanks, these places could further a national debate that is stymied by our love affair with simplistic social media.

In Adelaide, the Hawke Centre at the University of South Australia is evidence of some success in celebrating our former leaders but its limited profile underplays Bob Hawke’s legacy.

Places of national and international standing acknowledging prime ministers past could be self-funding. Graduates, political addicts and tourists may flock there just as they do in Washington and elsewhere to understand more about former leaders. A place to be active post politics would provide a foundation for a broader portfolio of interests, built up over time. Abbott was a brilliant opposition leader and, while not viewed by most as a successful prime minister, he had significant success in key areas. He should not subject himself to the backbench any longer, nor should he be the stalking horse for a few to push their views.

Current commentary involving the member for Warringah around who said what and when leading up to the change in leadership creates further unnecessary angst. Recent history shows Australians tire of such Canberra gossip.

Abbott should be able and encouraged to move to celebrate his achievements and devote time and effort to policy-specific debates in places where it does not create the instability that has ­dogged this country since 2008.

Ian Smith is the founder of Bespoke Approach, a political and corporate advisory firm, and a former Liberal Party adviser.