When I was asked my opinion on Scott Morrison thanking veterans after the acknowledgement of country, my first reaction was, “Really?” Not as in: “Did he really do that?,” but rather: “Really? I hadn’t heard he did that, but is it an issue?” From what I have been able to see, there hasn’t been much uproar among the general public regarding it. There were a few hyperbolic comments from an academic that his comments are “warmongering in a symbol of peace” and that he does it because it’s “reflective of his mentality and the party he stands for”.
Don’t get me wrong, I am on record as criticising the way in which the “veteran industry” has taken root in this country. Indeed I wrote last year about the ham-fisted proposal by Virgin Australia to copy the US mantra of “Thank you for your service”. It was trite, fake, cost-free, insulting to veterans and driven by commercial considerations rather than altruism. One of the unfortunate byproducts of this veneration of veterans has also been the aversion to (even well-constructed) criticism of veterans’ issues by non-veterans. By dint of circumstance I felt it appropriate at the time as a veteran to weigh in on the topic.
So I think criticism regarding veterans and their veneration is entirely appropriate when it is fair. But when I read what the prime minister actually said and where he said it, and when and how often he appears to say it, I thought the criticism of his actions was unfair. I am against compulsion, so if the practice became mandated or parroted by the government or any MPs I would once again seethe in righteous indignation. But if the PM wants to drop it in occasionally then I feel it’s his prerogative. No, he hasn’t any military experience himself, nor have many members of either side of politics, so he could be accused of trying to make political capital out of a group of which he is not a member.
In the Australian system, prime ministers have the practical authority to deploy the Australian defence force on operations overseas. It is perhaps the singularly most important role they have, although thankfully one that is exercised relatively sparingly. As the chair of the national security committee of cabinet the prime minister makes executive decisions regarding the operational use of Australian soldiers, sailors and airmen and women.
Those operational contingencies can be, and are, varied. At times the personnel are deployed on active service and at other times on peacekeeping missions. Personnel are now deployed in the Sinai, the Middle East and South Sudan on UN and other peacekeeping missions, so acknowledging them is hardly “warmongering in a symbol of peace”. I have no knowledge of the history of the introduction of acknowledgment of country in speeches by our politicians but I would have thought that those who argued for its inclusion would not have believed that it should come at the exclusion of acknowledgments of other Australians if the speaker so desired, particularly if they held special significance for that person.
And when that speaker is the prime minister who has the ultimate responsibility for deploying Australian men and women in harm’s way in pursuit of our national interest then I think he or she has every right to recognise those people at the same time as they give an acknowledgement of country. In the great scheme of things it is a small issue but, for someone who has scant regard for confected feting of veterans, and given their unique role in authorising military deployments, I do believe that prime ministers have the right to acknowledge veterans at the start of speeches if they so desire.
• Rodger Shanahan is a veteran and international policy research fellow at the Lowy Institute
