Follow Paul Keating’s lead on royal honours for politicians | David Penberthy

If politicians like Daniel Andrews and Mark McGowan had any respect for Australia’s King’s Birthday honours, they’d give theirs back, writes David Penberthy.

The bestowing of the prestigious Order of Australia on ex-premiers Dan Andrews and Mark McGowan invites two questions.

The first goes to the degree of vanity that would motivate either man to accept the award. The second goes to the necessity of honouring anyone in politics given the profile and benefits they enjoy anyway.

If these awards are going to enjoy continued public support and retain meaning for their worthier recipients, people in politics should forgo their AOs.

TELL US WHY IN THE COMMENTS

The past few days have confirmed that too often the announcement of the AO and AC appointees on Australia Day and the King’s Birthday is not some unifying national moment where we celebrate collective achievement.

Rather, it’s met with loud argument about how the hell some of the recipients made the cut.

The recognition of Andrews and McGowan is made even weirder when you consider the criteria by which these awards are doled out.

Former WA Premier Mark McGowan was controversially named a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civilian honour. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Tony McDonough

Former Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews was also the subject of widespread controversy after he was also named a Companion of the Order of Australia on the King’s Birthday honours list. Picture: Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images

Enough trees have been felled to publish opinion pieces arguing both men were so heavy-handed in their Covid management that their AOs cannot be justified.

For the sake of this piece I am not interested in turning the well-tilled soil over the politics of lockdown.

I would note though that for all the mouth-foaming about the draconian conduct of Dan Andrews, the bloke did keep winning election landslides, albeit helped by the fact the Liberals in Victoria are a factionally riven rabble who spent much of the past three years arguing about whether women should be allowed to have penises, perhaps an interesting topic for discussion, but one which does not form the basis for government.

My main query is this. What did either Mark McGowan or Dan Andrews ever do that made them unique and special statesmen whose contribution to public life excelled their brief?

That is a key criterion of the awards.

Or at least it is meant to be.

The awards are determined twice a year by the 19-member Council for the Order of Australia. Recipients are selected according to the following standards: “demonstrated achievement at a high level, made a contribution over and above what might be reasonably expected through paid employment, or made a voluntary contribution to the community which stands out from other volunteers”.

In the case of Mark McGowan, his nominated additional contribution underpinning his AC was his contribution to “international trade relations”.

I pay close attention to politics but can’t remember anything that catapults him into such territory, other than being good at selling minerals, which would seem to be your one real job as premier of Western Australia.

The funnier one was the acknowledgment of Dan Andrews for his additional contribution on “infrastructure development”, which seems strange given Victoria’s struggles to pay for its own infrastructure without enlisting the help of the Chinese Communist Party or by introducing punishing new taxes as it careens towards $180bn in state debt.

Even without these cheap pot-shots, what was the thing they did that made them so special and unique?

Unless you want to include holding world records for locking people up during a pandemic, which was certainly unique, especially in Victoria.

The problem with all this is twofold.

Politics is by its very definition a hotly contested field of endeavour where one-third of the public will be happy with your AO, another third appalled, while the other politically ambivalent third of us roll our eyes at the pomposity of it all.

The irritating feature of this process is it detracts from the genuinely amazing work of real community heroes, people in the charitable sector, frontline services, and lifesaving health and medicine, who are often both unsung and unsupported.

Politicians are the opposite of unsung.

They already enjoy mass recognition. And they are the polar opposite of unsupported – great pay, support staff, free cars, internet, laptops, phones, Qantas Club memberships, subsidised meals and, until 2004, a very cushy pension.

I am not sure why people who enjoy this level of support, and who already get around calling themselves “honourable”, need the added bonus of a lapel pin and a swish dinner at Government House celebrating their induction.

Whatever achievements are made by anyone in politics already come with significant remuneration and lavish support much more lavish than anything enjoyed by the community heroes who devote their own time and money to helping others.

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating refused an AO. Picture: AAP Image/David Moir

Against this backdrop, the idea of anyone in politics ever accepting these awards seems somewhat self-absorbed.

Indeed the very concept of an Order of Australia itself jars massively with our understated Australian ethos, where we generally shun and avoid any kind of recognition.

One of the best lines in the movie The Castle is “get your hand off it, Daryl.”

Accepting one of these things when you’ve already enjoyed the trappings of office and the benefits it affords is the ultimate “get your hand off it, Daryl” moment.

It is immodest in our supposedly classless society, and it felt this week like it’s getting to the point where the punters don’t think these AOs have any value at all.

And that is genuinely sad for the people who truly deserve them, as opposed to those who will spend the rest of their days being ferried around by a taxpayer-funded driver as they bask continuously in their former glories.

Whatever you think of the bloke, the test by which these AOs should be measured for people in politics was made by the irascible Paul Keating who declined one in 1997.

He said he had long believed honours should be reserved for those whose work in the community went unrecognised, and that having been prime minister was sufficient public recognition.

Or as potty-mouthed Paul might have put it himself: Get your hand off it, Daryl.

Originally published as Follow Paul Keating’s lead on royal honours for politicians | David Penberthy