The Ambush Backfire
Sydney Morning Herald
Monday February 16, 2004
How right Harold Wilson was with his observation that a week is a long time in politics. At the start of last week, the Federal Government was putting the finishing touches to its preparation for Parliament's resumption from a long, and occasionally shaky, summer that began with the elevation to the Opposition leadership of the unknown quantity, Mark Latham, and the disposal of the easy beat, Simon Crean. The Government planned to use the week to nail Mr Latham as Mr Flip-Flop, a medley of policy inconsistency with a propensity to shoot from the lip. But Mr Latham decided on a pre-emptive strike guaranteed to get voters nodding in agreement because it hit just where politicians feel it hardest: the perks of office.
In one fell swoop, he set the Prime Minister, John Howard, stumbling to a back foot by trashing a long-held cosy bipartisanship intended to protect these rorts. When he was PM, Mr Latham presumptuously declared on Tuesday, he would do away with the MP superannuation benefits which were so demonstrably out of touch with community standards.
But not even Mr Latham anticipated where his assault would so quickly lead.
Convinced he was on a hiding to nothing while the superannuation furore dominated front pages and the airwaves, Mr Howard acted with a fleetness not apparent at least on this issue in his 30 years as an MP and his eight as Prime Minister. On Tuesday evening, he announced that the Government would follow the Latham lead so that issues of national importance could again dominate the agenda. While MPs' overall remuneration was not excessive, he said, he would not allow the superannuation issue to ``drift on for months as the subject of a partisan political debate". If that meant having to wear a day or two of disparaging headlines about him being Mr Flip-Flop, so be it.
That might have been that except for details which have since emerged about the hornet's nest he unleashed in his party room. There the issue split in two, both motivated by self-interest. The dissonance was loudest when confusion reigned over whether Mr Howard was talking about cutting current MPs' super or that of future MPs, a predictable response although Mr Howard's handling of the distinction worried some.
More telling was the outrage of Coalition MPs who branded the Howard cave-in as political weakness, and craven. His usual cool authority, enhanced by eight years of insipid Opposition and his tactical and agenda-setting mastery, were temporarily seen as fragile. That spooked many preparing to do battle for a fourth Coalition term.
The public clamour for reform of MPs' super was overwhelming and Mr Howard was right to take it on board. Had he waited a respectable period, however, he could have shored up the party room and robbed Mr Latham of valuable points. In the end, voters will focus more on the reality of much-needed reform. The interests of the Coalition would be best served if the Prime Minister's colleagues did likewise.
© 2004 Sydney Morning Herald