Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison has recently received Australia’s highest civilian honor, being named a Companion of the Order of Australia in the annual King’s Birthday Honours List. This recognition places him among an elite group, alongside notable figures such as filmmaker Baz Luhrmann and Oscar-winning costume designer Catherine Martin. However, the honor has sparked controversy, particularly from Amanda Rose, founder of Entrepreneurial and Small Business Women Australia, who has called it an “insult.” She questions the appropriateness of rewarding Morrison given his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and issues such as the robodebt scandal, suggesting that these matters overshadow any achievements during his tenure.
Morrison’s premiership from 2018 to 2022 was characterized by significant controversies. His approach to the COVID-19 crisis drew criticism, particularly regarding the vaccine rollout, which was often viewed as inadequate. There was additional backlash surrounding his decision to take a holiday in Hawaii during the catastrophic Black Summer bushfires in 2019-2020, which many Australians found particularly offensive. More recently, revelations about Morrison secretly appointing himself to five ministerial positions during the pandemic have further complicated his legacy. These actions have led to strong sentiments that his recognition is undeserved and may be viewed as a misalignment with public sentiment.
Despite these controversies, Morrison’s time in office was not devoid of achievements. He played a crucial role in establishing the AUKUS security alliance, a pact involving Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States aimed at enhancing security and defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region. Furthermore, he successfully advanced Australia’s participation in the QUAD diplomatic partnership, which includes key nations like India and Japan, underlining Australia’s commitment to regional stability. He also initiated two significant free trade agreements, which are crucial for Australia’s economic relations, particularly in a post-pandemic context. These successes represent a stark contrast to the criticisms levied against him.
Amanda Rose’s assertion that Morrison should decline the honor stems from her belief that his premiership’s blemishes outweigh any contributions he made. She emphasizes the hardships faced by small businesses and individuals during the lockdowns, which many feel were mishandled. The sentiment echoed by many detractors is that honoring Morrison serves to undermine the struggles of those who were affected by his policies, particularly regarding economic impacts during the pandemic. Rose argues that the reward essentially reflects a problematic perception of his leadership during a critical time in Australian history.
The division of opinion surrounding Morrison’s honor encapsulates broader societal views on leadership and accountability. Critics maintain that the values represented by the award should align with public welfare, especially after a period defined by significant hardship. Conversely, supporters might argue that Morrison’s achievements in fostering international alliances and economic initiatives merit recognition, regardless of the missteps made along the way. This debate highlights the complexity of public service, where both accomplishments and failures contribute to a leader’s legacy.
In conclusion, Scott Morrison’s recent accolade has reignited discussions about leadership accountability in Australia. While some view the honor as a deserved recognition of contributions to international relations and economic frameworks, others perceive it as profoundly insensitive, given the hardships endured during his term in office. The controversy surrounding the award ultimately speaks to the ongoing struggle for a balanced understanding of leadership, grappling with both achievements and the consequences of policy decisions.
