The awards system for public service is not a big issue.

The much more important issue is the idea that Australian PMs have a general licence to make decisions unilaterally. When I was in the Howard cabinet, there were very few times when Howard acted unilaterally and without allowing the issues to be aired in the cabinet. Of course, PMs are sometimes required to act due to circumstances but that was not the case on this occasion. My sense of recent practice is that unilateral decision-making became more prevalent under Kevin Rudd. Rudd was probably worse than Julia Gillard although her four-person kitchen cabinet was also a means of bypassing cabinet government. It is a bad habit and best discouraged.

There is good reason to abide by the idea of the PM being "first among equals". It reminds PMs that they are not god. A decision made in the cabinet keeps everybody in the tent. When everyone is in the tent the sense of camaraderie is enhanced. A team approach may also discourage the allied practice of central control which has also featured too often in recent times. Consultation in the cabinet brings to bear the experience and knowledge of the group.

Unfortunately, Abbott has developed a liking for unilateral decisions. I am not sure any of his unilateral decisions have been either good for him personally, good for the party or the country. Recent Abbott decisions, nearly all made in opposition, have included the paid parental leave, public funding for political parties (later turfed by an irate Liberal federal executive), the local government referendum (where Abbott was saved by the informal campaign of his Coalition troops) and the decisions to dump individual agreements (Coalition industrial relations policy for nearly 20 years) and the "dead, buried and cremated" labour market policy at the start of the 2010 elections. There will be more.

He is already committed to a referendum on recognition of indigenous Australians. Already, under Labor, this issue has not been as well managed. Abbott has a truly compassionate commitment to the indigenous cause and I respect him for his genuine interest in social policy. But the reality is that he is locked in to a referendum even though the words have not been agreed and before a process has been established for broader involvement by the Australian public. The public do not like unilateral decisions about their constitution; if the public are not brought into the process at the start, the chances of success are reduced.