Ever heard of flexibility?
It may not have been a "core" issue, however, it is an interesting demonstration of """""democracy"""""" (haha) at work, and the real idea of a government and opposition (not to mention the leaders of each).
P.S HAHA Costello and Abbott got shot down because they were defending the super/attacking Latham the day before Howard did one of his prize backflips, and now they're in the shit.
Howard moved because Latham had hit the mark. Analysis by Mark Riley.
Mark Latham had his first taste yesterday of what it's like to be Prime Minister. For the first time in eight years of opposition, he got to change the law.
After two days of ridiculing the Labor leader as "Mr Flip-Flop", John Howard executed a spectacular backflip of his own on MPs' superannuation.
Howard explained his decision at a press conference late yesterday as being in keeping with the positive new air pervading federal politics.
He said he had always maintained that if an Opposition leader came up with a good idea, he would act upon it. Apparently, neither Kim Beazley nor Simon Crean had one in the first seven years and eight months of Howard's prime ministership.
But it has taken Latham just two months to produce one so persuasive that it forced Howard to swallow his Government's collective pride and act immediately.
Howard had told a different story to his Government colleagues at a special party room meeting earlier in the afternoon.
Latham had tapped into a rich vein of community disquiet about the enormously generous nature of the MPs' super scheme and the Government would wear the consequences if it did not act immediately to shut him up.
Several Liberal MPs disagreed on the grounds that it would dissuade good quality candidates from entering politics because they could earn more elsewhere.
But that missed Latham's point entirely. His argument was that people should seek public office for the currency of altruism and not the dirty folding stuff. (My bolding)
Howard conceded in a television interview last night that part of the reason for his move was that the issue risked becoming a diversion. By backing down he was ensuring the debate could focus on "more important issues" like the free trade deal.
He said he would cop one day's bad headlines if it meant he could get back to the real business of government. It didn't seem to matter that two prime ministerial aspirants on his own side of the house suffered in the process.
Peter Costello would be feeling a little worse for wear after being trotted out on Wednesday to defend the super scheme, then hung out to dry the next day by Howard's about-turn. So would Tony Abbott, who attacked Latham's "populist campaign" based on "the politics of envy".
It is now clear the only envy that John Howard felt was for Latham's ability to take a benign issue and turn it into a political weapon.
SMH, 13/2/04
