Political Corrections

with Mungo MacCallum

You know it makes sense

A couple of weeks ago this column warned against catchphrases used by governments to clothe naked political advantage.

One such phrase is "the national interest", which in John Howard's mouth has come to mean anything that will advance his own standing, or, even more frequently, damage that of his opponents. Now he has developed a new one, which sounds even more voter-friendly: common sense.

Thus it is common sense for Australia to get involved in America's plans for a missile defence shield - although it is clear that there is great hostility towards the idea in our own region and it could trigger a new arms race.

It is common sense to sign a trade agreement with the world's biggest economy - although it compromises our position as an advocate of genuine free trade and may even work to our nett disadvantage.

It is common sense to introduce a selective safety net for the Medicare scheme - although it kills off the overriding principle of a universal health scheme and does nothing to keep overall medical costs down.

And most recently, it is common sense to amend the Racial Discrimination Act so that the Roman Catholic Church can advertise 12 male-only teaching scholarships - although everyone, including the Church itself, agrees that such a move would do nothing to address the long term problem of a shortage of male primary school teachers.

Keen students of the Howard government will have noted the key factor all four proposals have in common, and it isn't sense. Not only are they thoroughly dubious policy; they are all ideas with a superficial popular appeal, and ones about which the Labor opposition is at best equivocal and most probably unhappy. They are, in short, a classic example of wedge politics in action.

Howard, of course, denies this although at least he is not quite as hypocritical about it as his Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, who recently asked ingenuously of a reporter: "Just what are wedge politics, anyway?" Howard claims that the thought of a wedge had never even crossed his mind, oh, heavens above and cross my fingers no. These proposals were simply good policy - common sense, in fact. It was just a happy coincidence that they all - as he was forced, more in sorrow than in anger, to reveal to a confused public - posed crucial tests for the Labor Party, and particularly for its new leader, Mark Latham.

When it was suggested that the latest example involving male teachers was in fact specifically designed to make mischief after Latham's recent remarks about a crisis in masculinity, Howard waxed positively indignant. What a suggestion, he scoffed: why, Education Minister Brendan Nelson had been in discussions about the male teacher shortage long before Latham even became party leader.

Well, perhaps; but their solution, which involves chipping a hole in a major piece of Labor legislation in an attempt to apply a bandaid to a small scratch in the education system while allowing the public haemorrhaging to continue unabated, would seem to the cynical to have much more to do with denting Latham's credibility than in solving the problem.

Howard says this is not some sinister plot to break down the Sex Discrimination Act, and we can believe him; its main purpose, as already mentioned, is to embarrass Latham. But it is worth noting that Howard has always been vigorously opposed to the Act, having argued and voted against it at every opportunity; and of course the Roman Catholic Church has constantly (and in this case unsuccessfully) attempted to claim exemption from the Act's provisions.

The Sex Discrimination Act, in Howard's eyes, is a prime case of the dreaded political correctness he has dedicated his prime ministership to eliminating. There is little doubt that if he saw any chance of repealing it, he would do so without hesitation. Since he can't do that, to be able to give the act and Latham both a few whacks with the same wedge is a no doubt welcome bonus.

But there is also a touch of contradiction here, almost what Howard might call a flip-flop. Another pet hate of Howard's has always been affirmative action; for all his political life he has rejected the idea that disadvantaged groups should be given special treatment to lift them towards equality. In particular he has inveighed against the proposition that women should be encouraged by law and circumstance to rise through the ranks of business or politics.

The suggestion that positions should, in effect, be reserved for women drives him to the verge of apoplexy. He has fought against it in government, in opposition and within his own party. But now, Howard is suddenly proposing his own course of affirmative action - for male teachers, which has not only become quite acceptable, but indeed common sense.

Perhaps it is he, rather than Latham, who is failing the test.

Treasurer Peter Costello, rapidly consolidating his position as the Prime Minister who never was, last week revealed an unexpected sense of humour - either that or gross insensitivity.

Having spent most of the week refusing to rule out a challenge to John Howard's seemingly interminable leadership, he was finally forced into a humiliating and monosyllabic backdown amidst ironic cheers from the opposition - and a few from his own side. But within minutes he was back on his feet, talking of the future in these carefully chosen words: "The government faces a challenging year." Oh dear.