Right: Professor David Flint, head of the Australian Monarchist League, has applauded the reintroduction of knights and dames, saying that without the titles, the Australian honours system is faulted.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against restoring the titles of Knight and Dame
1. The change to the honours system is an anachronism
The reintroduction of Knights and Dames as titles within the Australian honours system has been condemned as out of line with contemporary thinking.
According to this line of argument, such titles no longer reflect Australian views and values. They have been abolished since 1986, nearly thirty years ago, and reflect a British system within which, historically, titles, conferred by the Monarch, were then inherited and the basis of a system of privilege and inequality which does not sit well with modern Australia's regard for democracy and equal opportunity.
On March 25, 2014, Larry Graham, a columnist for The Canberra Times, wrote, 'This is not England - it was once - but we grew up and developed some of our own great strengths. One of which has been to strenuously avoid the pitfalls of entrenched class and privilege.'
Former Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard, has criticised the decision to reinstitute knights and dames into the Australian honours system on the basis of it being an anachronism to many Australians and said it was 'unlikely' he would accept a knighthood should he be offered one.
Mr Howard stated, 'For me this was an on-balance decision as in some respects the knighthood system, properly applied, was a way of giving special recognition to certain people. I knew, however...as a strong supporter of the constitutional monarchy continuing in Australia, I did not wish to be seen to be reviving an honour which to many, even conservative Australians, was somewhat anachronistic.'
The Labor Party has been formally opposed to imperial honours as out of step with Australian values since 1918. After Mr Abbott's announcement, Opposition treasury spokesman, Chris Bowen, stated on ABC Radio, 'In a week where the Prime Minister has wound back 20 years of racial discrimination protection and now we're going back to knighthoods, taking us back 30 years.
He may in question time today announce that vinyl records are coming back or that his car plan is to reintroduce Cortinas and Toranas. I don't know what could possibly be next.'
The Greens are similarly opposed. Greens' senator, Adam Bandt, said of the decision, 'This is not Game of Thrones.
It shows a government bereft of ideas, and a social policy that isn't even stuck in the last century, it's stuck centuries ago.'
2. The change to the honours system undermines Australian autonomy
One of the purposes of the change to Australian honours that Prime Minister Whitlam made in 1975 was to have a system of honours that was exclusively Australian. Prior to that, the Australian system of honours was the British system, using the same titles, conferred by the same Monarch, albeit in her role as Queen of Australia. The change Whitlam instituted saw the introduction of a new set of honours which, while still conferred by the Queen, was uniquely Australian and did not carry with it the British-sounding titles.
The return to Knights and Dames reinstates titles with traditionally British overtones and as such, in the eyes of many people, undermines the distinctly Australian quality that our current honours system has. Australian Republican Movement national director, David Morris, has called it a retrograde step. Mr Morris has stated, 'This is turning the clock back to a colonial frame of mind that we have outgrown as a nation.'
The honours system is primarily a means of honouring Australian citizens for their services to Australia. Thus, it is claimed, the titles awarded should be uniquely Australian. Mr Morris has further stated, 'Our identity today is Australian, so our national honours should be thoroughly Australian.'
It has been claimed that the failure of the traditional awards to reflect the unique nature of Australia's population can be seen in their lack of recognition of indigenous Australians.
Karen Fox, in an explication of Knights and Dames in Australia, written for the Australian Dictionary of Biography, has stated, 'By the time titles were removed from the Order of Australia in 1986, no Aboriginal women had become dames, and only one Aboriginal man a knight - Doug Nicholls.'
In an editorial published on March 27, 2014, The Brisbane Times stated, 'It's time to ask why Mr Abbott chose to send such an embarrassing message to an increasingly proud and independent nation quite content with its honours system.'
3. The change to the honours system was made without cabinet consultation or electoral mandate
Tony Abbott has been criticised for making the decision to reinstate Knights and Dames without consulting with his Cabinet or the Coalition and without any form of electoral mandate.
Former Liberal front-bencher, Amanda Vanstone, has criticised the decision because she believes it is unnecessary and anachronistic. However, her most substantial concerns relate to how the decision was taken.
Ms Vanstone has stated, 'There is, however, a far more serious issue and that is the decision-making process. Or lack of it. Prime ministers may well deserve a stronger voice in government. The word prime has real meaning. A prime minister on top of his game gives a lot of extra credence to the rest of the government and that brings with it a few privileges. Having a stronger voice is one of those. Flying solo to indulge yourself is not.'
Ms Vanstone further explains, 'A prime minister who rides roughshod over his cabinet colleagues when there is no security or other imperative to do so is playing a dangerous game...The leader breaks all the rules others are expected to follow because he is betting that the cabinet and party room will let him get away with it.' Amanda Vanstone argues that a prime minister who behaves in the way Tony Abbott has on this issue breaks all the protocols of mutual trust and respect upon which a Cabinet relies to function effectively.
This may well mean that Tony Abbott has begun to lose the confidence of his Cabinet because its members now know that he may well not consult them about the actions he proposes to take and thus they, in future, may be less willing to adhere to either the decisions he takes unilaterally or those endorsed by the rest of the Cabinet.
It has also been noted that Tony Abbott has no electoral sanction for reinstating Knights and Dames. When asked just after the September 2013 election would he reintroduce these titles he answered 'No.'
In an interview given to The Daily Telegraph in December, 2013, Mr Abbott stated, 'It's true that some people have said to me: 'What about doing what New Zealand did [in regard to reinstating knights and dames]...No, no, no. Just a bit of chatter. I don't think New Zealand is a relevant model here...I just don't think that's realistic in this country.'
Though it now appears that Mr Abbott was rejecting the manner in which New Zealand reinstated Knights and Dames rather than the fact that it did so, this is certainly not clear from this interview. Of greater significance is the fact that prior to the election he gave no indication that this was a step he planned to take; therefore, he has no mandate for the action and appears to be flying in the face of popular opinion on the issue.
4. The reinstatement of Knights and Dames does not have support among the Australian electorate
Several of the measures Mr Abbott has taken to reassert Australia's traditional links with Great Britain do not appear to have popular support.
When sworn in as Prime Minister, Mr Abbott swore allegiance to the Monarch rather than to Australia and its people. A poll conducted by the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) found that only 20 per cent of those surveyed supported the Prime Minister in the form of oath he had taken.
It has been claimed that Mr Abbott's actions regarding Knights and Dames similarly lack popular support. In a poll conducted by the Australian Financial Review in April, 2014, a mere 35 per cent of those polled supported the reinstatement while it was opposed by 50 per cent.
Polls conducted by a range of media outlets since Tony Abbott's reinstatement of these honours reflect the same pattern. At the time of publication of this issue outline, a poll conducted in the Queensland Border Mail found 36 per cent in favour of the reinstated honours and 63 per cent opposed.
Even some recipients of the more traditionally titled honour have indicated a lack of support for the reintroduction of these titles. Sir Graham McCamley, knighted in 1986, has stated, 'I just see it as unnecessary.
We moved away from the Imperial system to an Australian honours system, which is recognised everywhere in the world.
That is how it has been for quite a long time. I think that once the decision is made, we should stick to it.'
5. Changing the honours system creates inconsistencies, confusion and scope to bring Australian honours into disrepute
Opponents of the reintroduction of knights and dames have argued that the changes do not meld well with the system currently in operation.
Sinclair Davidson, writing in The Catallaxy File on March 26, 2014, stated, 'The 457 recipients of the Companion of the Order of Australia - which was until yesterday the number one honour (excluding bravery awards such as the VC, CV and SC) - have been demoted at a stroke to second class.'
The same view has been expressed by Petra Starke in a piece published in The Adelaide Advertiser on March 26, 2014. Ms Starke states, 'Now it seems we also have to have AK and AD, which will take precedence over everything and so immediately devalue all of the above titles. That's a nice slap in the face for all past AC recipients who thought they'd been awarded Australia's highest honour. Not anymore.'
Similarly, Michael Shmith, writing an opinion piece published in The Age on March 27, 2014, has stated, 'All those named ACs (Companion of the Order of Australia), who were awarded the country's highest civil honour, are suddenly down a notch: second-class citizens. And so on, through the OAs, AMs and OAMs.'
Troy Bramston, a columnist for The Australian, has expressed very much the same view. In an opinion piece published on March 31, 2014, Bramston stated that 'Adding a new echelon of Australian honours degrades the existing honours awarded.'
Also concerning to many critics of the recent change is the manner in which Australia's top honours seem to have become caught in a political revolving door.
Including the fundamental changes instituted in 1975, Australia's honours system has been significantly modified four times in less than forty years. Critics are concerned that the frequency of these changes will create a sense of instability and undermine the regard in which such awards need to be held to be of any value as an acknowledgment of the service of recipients.
This point has been made by Barrie Cassidy on March 27, 2014, on the ABC's opinion site, The Drum. Cassidy has stated, 'There's a pattern here. The system is adjusted according to the politics - or the political dominance - of the day.'
Cassidy has highlighted the concerning consequences of these changes. 'Honours should be above politics, given out according to a community consensus...Those awarded the top honour should know that the recognition of their life's work is both bipartisan and consistent with past practices.'