Purer view of character on display as politics laid aside

THE nation is seeing a new Tony Abbott — the Prime Minister as crisis manager. It is a time when more people than usual focus on their leader and the leader, in turn, operates as principal mourner, chief diplomat and security guardian.

Abbott’s virtue — so far — is the sense of control he brings to the crisis. He is measured yet firm, not overwhelmed by events yet adapting and changing as the situation changes. He has been active, not passive, yet working with others, notably the Dutch and the Malaysians.

On display is the purity of executive power: to be precise, prime ministerial authority in crisis. It reminds that Abbott’s prime ministership has a dual nature: most of what he does himself is impressive and much of what demands parliamentary approval leaves Abbott looking ineffective and divisive.

Now Abbott holds centre stage. The parliamentary shouting is lost, for the moment. In this crisis, Labor has no role but to say yes. The Greens are near mute. Clive Palmer is not grandstanding. The Senate is not required. Abbott is being Abbott. The crisis, as usual, offers a purer view of prime ministerial character.

Crisis management is becoming a more regular obligation for Australian prime ministers — this task has redefined the job, made it more exacting and created fresh political opportunities for the incumbent.

It is crisis that reveals the essence of character. Kevin Rudd’s defining moment was his response to the 2008 global financial crisis.

John Howard’s success in office can be grasped only by his crisis management — over East Timor in 1999, the 9/11 attack on the US in 2001 and the Bali bombing in 2002.

Abbott’s first crisis touching the nation’s soul, the shooting-down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, is different again.

Involving 28 Australian deaths, the largest number since the Bali bombing, Abbott has been plunged into leading the grieving process, driving an international diplomatic response and deploying the national security machinery for a possible role in distant Ukraine.

At an early stage, Abbott defined his priorities: securing the site, returning the bodies, an independent inquiry and punishing the guilty.

Each day, his sense of mission is clearer. It is the key to crisis management. Abbott said late yesterday he had but one purpose: “to bring our people home”, not involvement in the politics of eastern Europe. That is a national, bipartisan, humanitarian objective.

Having put the pressure on Russia at the outset, Abbott yesterday paid tribute to President Vladimir Putin’s “sympathy” towards Australian families. He was prudent enough from the outset not to veto Putin’s attendance at the G20 heads of government meeting in Brisbane in November. That would have been populist folly. Others fell for it. Abbott didn’t.

His response has been multi-faceted — a fast and successful UN Security Council resolution; intense leader-to-leader global diplomacy; an effective performance by an assured Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop; planning to deploy 190 Australian police to the site under overall Dutch leadership; and recruitment of those national icons to vital roles, General Peter Cosgrove as Governor-General and Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston in his latest role as Abbott’s envoy.

But the response to the downing of flight MH17 is a high-risk project. The more Abbott pushes, the more risks he takes, the more things can go wrong. There is always the possibility this situation could backfire on Abbott. There are many unpredictable elements.

Such deaths bring people and the nation together. It highlights the Prime Minister’s role as orchestrator of rituals that honour the innocent dead. At this time, the nation looks to its leader to see a reflection of its emotions, even draw some comfort. For the public, this casts Abbott in a new light.

For many, it is an improbable light. Abbott’s response has been defined by personal calmness, executive strength and compassion for the bereaved.

The contrast with the partisan, anti-carbon tax, destructive political assault agent from the Labor government days could hardly be greater.

But there is also another departure — from Abbott, the harsh budget PM under siege for his fiscal correction and under attack from an obstructionist, irresponsible Senate.

It is tempting but superficial to say this event will change public perceptions of Abbott. The truth, rather, is that it gives Abbott an opportunity to improve his standing with the public— providing he can maintain projection of the qualities now on display. Because they are the authentic Abbott, that may be possible.

This is not a national-security crisis, yet Abbott has responded through the national-security machinery, notably cabinet’s Nation­al Security Committee. It is another key to his success. It testifies to the security structures institutionalised from Howard’s time. Abbott, moreover, has learned quickly, notably from the Indon­esian spy crisis in his early weeks in office.

Within this system, Abbott has led but been ready to take advice. His judgments, so far, have been vindicated.

The first stage of Australia’s response — a far-reaching UN Sec­urity Council resolution — was facilitated by Australia’s presence on the council courtesy of the campaign of the former Labor government. It shows Abbott, like Howard, willing to use the UN machinery to advance Australia’s interests. This event is the high tide of our role on the Security Council.

The second stage, deployment of a multinational force to the site, involves distinct risk. From the start, Abbott has been angry and frustrated at the abuse of the site, saying there was “evidence of tampering on an industrial scale”.

Abbott was not prepared to sit pat while “the site is controlled by armed men with a vested interest in the outcome of the investig­ation”. He warned of a “cover-up”.

Indeed, it is probable that vital evidence has been ruined or removed. Convinced this was an untenable situation for Australian families and for the nation, Abbott got options early last week on how to secure the site.

There are 90 police officers predeployed in Europe and another 100 are being sent from Australia. This constitutes the largest overseas deployment of federal police since the Bali bombing. They are ready to attend the crash site as part of an inter­national team led by the Dutch. Abbott calls this an “international, police-led, humanitarian mission”. He expects the deployment to last no more than a few weeks.

With the site being part of a war zone, the risks will be tangible. The preconditions are: a formal memorandum with Ukraine, the green light from Putin, the support of US President Barack Obama, the participation of the “wronged” nations and the declared purpose of implementing the Security Council resolution.

Securing the 50sq km site is an unpredictable challenge. Ukraine does not control this territory. How will the rebels react? Will Putin seek to restrain them? What happens if there is conflict with the rebels? What is being tested now is Abbott’s judgment.

“We will protect our people,” Bishop said of any multinational police force. Sure, but how? Knowing Abbott, he will be thinking of a fallback military contingency. How might that work? Abbott said yesterday there was already a “modest” Australian Defence Force presence in Ukraine.

The most fascinating dimension has been Abbott’s comments about Russia and his talks with Putin. Abbott fingered Russian respon­sibility at the outset for supporting and supplying the rebels, including with the missile to shoot down MH17. Yet virtually nothing can be achieved at this site short of Russian consent or tolerance.

Abbott intensified the global pressure on Russia. But after talking with Putin he changed the narrative: Putin was saying the right thing so he had to honour his word. It was a subtle double message. Abbott didn’t trust Putin. He wanted the public to know he didn’t trust Putin. But Putin should be expected to uphold the commitments he made to grieving nations.

Continuing this context, Abbott said that in his second talk with the Russian leader, Putin said “it is important that the site be secured by international police” to enable an impartial, international investigation. For Abbott, this was a critical concession.

Abbott has not been in office 12 months, yet his foreign policy and personal diplomacy is having a far-reaching impact, a combination of planning and reacting to events. A feature of the current situation has been Australian-Dutch co-operation. This demands sensitivity from Australia since the Dutch, the people who suffered most, have a special place as lead agent.

Abbott, like Julia Gillard, has been defined largely by caricature. It is a feature of adversary politics. Both sides try to distort and ruin the image of their opponent. Too often the picture the public has of its leader is too removed from the real person. Another side of ­Abbott has been on display this week — it is an opportunity he needs to build on.